Predictions on Discontinuing Sets and their Secondary Market Value

1572573575577578668

Comments

  • BuriedinBricksBuriedinBricks USAMember Posts: 1,366
    I had so much He-Man stuff. I was all I played with from about '82-'84 and pretty much all I got for birthdays/Christmas/random toys during that time frame, until I branched out to GI Joe and then LEGO. I had some Transformers, but I didn't own any of the big name G1 guys until the 2000s when (like many others) the wave of nostalgia from the first Bayformers movie got me looking around for some of the re-issue versions.

    The He-Man figs were the only childhood toys my parents did not hold on to. My mom sold the whole lot of it when I was in high school...really kind of wish I still had at least some of the key things (Castle Grayskull). The stuff Mattel sells now is soooo expensive.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,803

    ^ I was being slightly flippant in my comment. Sure people will know what it is, but will they care 10 years from now?

    Remember, plenty of kids movies are complete flops too. The movie has to be a hit for many of those things to happen. It could be great, who knows? But it's based off of a game that was popular a few years ago.

    Now, most kids don't even need to know what the game was to like the movie. I will say that. But Sonic is a good example. Not remotely as big as it was when I was a kid. It was THE answer to Mario for a while there. Now, it's largely considered a thing of the past.

    With Angry Birds, they need to do more in lines with the movie and after it than one LEGO wave for people to not only get interested, but stay interested.

    Adults don't remember everything from when they were kids. They remember mostly the good things. A good example, The Good Dinosaur. I was bored. The target audience, my kids, were bored. And if you go to most stores in the US lately, toys are there, but there isn't massive shelf space dedicated to them. Maybe Angry Birds does great and rides some new wave of resurgence, but maybe it flops and no one cares in 10 years.

    And you have an Atari shirt because I would assume you liked your Atari. But would you buy something from back in the day that you didn't like then or now? Likely not. I have a Voltron shirt, but I'm not clamoring to order a Power Rangers one. (Sorry to you Power Rangers fans out there.)

    I think the Sonic comparison is an apt one, and is part of why I think people are selling the Angry Birds theme short. Sonic hasn't had a really popular game in years, and yet he continues to appear in games, he continues to appear in merchandise, and he's even got a fairly popular official Twitter feed. Sonic may not at the head of the pack anymore when it comes to video game protagonists, but he's still got a strong nostalgic following.

    We live in an era where self-proclaimed "90s kids" indulge in enough nostalgia that you'd think they were already in the throes of a mid-life crisis. So while I'm not under any illusions that Angry Birds is anywhere near as popular as it was three to five years ago, it surprises me how many people are talking about it as if nobody cares about it anymore. Particularly with a movie coming.
    Amanda1983
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,950
    CircleK said: 

    While He-Man, Transformers, and Joes were the big 3 of my childhood, my toy of choice was a building system called Construx. I could build anything with those things and they were perfect for building spaceships, vehicles, mechs, fortresses, etc that scaled well with 3.5" figures. I didn't have much Lego as a kid and I honestly didn't care for it anyways back then. I couldn't build a tomahawk for Duke with Lego but I could with Construx. I still prefer Construx to Lego today. Wish they still made them. 

    When my kids were younger, I searched high and low for any construction system on the market that was like Construx. Construx was an amazing building system, and while it was a bit past my time, the items my younger sibling made were crazy cool. 
  • ReesesPiecesReesesPieces Member Posts: 814
    I grew up pretty poor but I disgrace some hand me down Lego when I was young.

    1984 - made transformers out of lego
    1985 - pretended my Lego spacemen were gi joe
    1988 - pretended my Lego spacemen are ninja turtles (yellow spaceman had to be Mikey and white one was Donnie)

    this is what is so great about Lego!
    FollowsCloselykiki180703givmellisvwong19VortexAmanda1983
  • monkeyhangermonkeyhanger Member Posts: 2,835
    edited January 2016
    Toy progression for me was:-

    1979-85 Lego (mainly space Lego), less so once into Star Wars

    81-84 Star Wars - plenty of the stuff, ships and figures, my Mam sold them all at a car boot sale for a pittance.

    84-87 Transformers, I found it far easier to get hold of G1 Autobots than the full range of Decepticons. I was not much of a fan of the Transformers cartoons that came more than a year after the 1986 movie. In the early days, Summer holidays started with watching Transformers on Wack-a-day with Timmy Mallet.

    85-87 I was into MASK too.

    Watched the Thundercats cartoons, but not religiously, had no interest in He-Man at all. I was barely aware of GI Joe, it wasn't that big in the UK (to my knowledge).

    Beyond that I was making all kinds of scale models, but they took up space quickly!

    Then at 14 years old I started playing Snooker a lot down the local British Legion (my Dad's second home!).


     
    GothamConstructionCokiki180703vwong19
  • CircleKCircleK U.S. - Columbus, OhioMember Posts: 1,055
    I grew up pretty poor but I disgrace some hand me down Lego when I was young.

    1984 - made transformers out of lego
    1985 - pretended my Lego spacemen were gi joe
    1988 - pretended my Lego spacemen are ninja turtles (yellow spaceman had to be Mikey and white one was Donnie)

    this is what is so great about Lego!
    Same. That's why Construx were so great. I didn't have vehicles for my Joes or Star Wars figs so I would build them. In a way, It made play time much more fun bc i could blow up the stuff I made, have battle damage, crash landings, and so on. I would have never played that rough with the actual vehicles bc I valued them and took really good care of what little toys I had. The Construx took a beating though and held up very well. 
    Amanda1983
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,374
    Many of the 80's cartoons; like He-Man, G.I. Joe A Real American Hero and Transformers, were made to sell the toys. 
    pharmjodkiki180703monkeyhangerAmanda1983
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,374
    edited January 2016
    I never subscribed to the idea that just because there's a smaller/cheaper alternative LEGO set available, that will detract from a larger/more expensive LEGO set. People that want the UCS Imperial Shuttle, will BUY the UCS Imperial Shuttle. These people will not settle for Shuttle Tydirium. 
    SumoLegowagnerml2SprinkleOtterBrickDancerbandit778kiki180703dougtsmonkeyhangerVortex
  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Belleville, IllinoisMember Posts: 1,376
    ^This.  And, always remember that the "C" in UCS stands for Collectors.  Different from Tydirium which is first and foremost designed for play.
    Pitfall69kiki180703
  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Belleville, IllinoisMember Posts: 1,376
    I loved GI Joe toys and He-Man toys, but never really got into the cartoons.  My brother was 2 years younger than me and really got into GI Joe cartoons (Knowing is half the battle).  If that came out in 1984, I was 12 and he was 10, so maybe that was the difference.  I can remember my favorite cartoons being Johnny Quest and Speed Racer.  Loved those.  Space Ghost was close to the top as well!
    Pitfall69kiki180703
  • LyichirLyichir United StatesMember Posts: 723
    wagnerml2 said:
    ^This.  And, always remember that the "C" in UCS stands for Collectors.  Different from Tydirium which is first and foremost designed for play.
    Implying collectors never like to play, or vice-versa. Even a model meant for display benefits from being functional, or being scaled to other figures, because it increases the number of ways you can display it. Even "play features" can be good for collectors—sure, they might not make a difference if you leave a model on display on the shelf, but then again leaving even a totally static model on the shelf will often mean that a lot of the aesthetic details will go unnoticed. Finally, you would think that Star Wars would be the perfect example of how many collectors don't discern between playable or display items in their collection—after all, there is a huge culture of collectors of Star Wars merchandise ranging from actual movie props to action figures and playable toys.

    People read too much into the term "Ultimate Collectors Series" all the time, but really it doesn't have any deeper meaning than the fact that those sets are larger, more detailed, and more impressive than other Star Wars sets—the ULTIMATE Lego Star Wars items for a dedicated COLLECTOR. There's never actually been a rule that UCS sets couldn't have minifigures or play features—that's nothing more than the common AFOL tendency to try and justify excluding an item from their collection and still considering it "complete".
    Amanda1983
  • Sethro3Sethro3 United StatesMember Posts: 819
    I would have a very similar childhood to what a lot of people listed here. Thundercats would have been a great LEGO license, but since CHIMA was basically their answer to Thundercats, I would never see that happening.

    Someone on EB made a whole bunch of GI Joe custom figures in LEGO form. It was very interesting to see and they translated quite well. Clearly that isn't a theme that LEGO would get into even without different mother brands.
  • xwingpilotxwingpilot UKMember Posts: 797
    Pitfall69 said:
    I never subscribed to the idea that just because there's a smaller/cheaper alternative LEGO set available, that will detract from a larger/more expensive LEGO set. People that want the UCS Imperial Shuttle, will BUY the UCS Imperial Shuttle. These people will not settle for Shuttle Tydirium. 
    I didn't come out of my dark age until long after the UCS set was retired. Whilst I'm a huge UCS fan, I'm actually quite tempted by #75094...
  • catwranglercatwrangler Northern IrelandMember Posts: 1,788
    Well, @CircleK's solved a mystery for me - I remember seeing Construx at a friend's house and thinking it was really cool, but I never knew what it was called!
    Amanda1983
  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Belleville, IllinoisMember Posts: 1,376
    Lyichir said:
    wagnerml2 said:
    ^This.  And, always remember that the "C" in UCS stands for Collectors.  Different from Tydirium which is first and foremost designed for play.
    Implying collectors never like to play, or vice-versa. Even a model meant for display benefits from being functional, or being scaled to other figures, because it increases the number of ways you can display it. Even "play features" can be good for collectors—sure, they might not make a difference if you leave a model on display on the shelf, but then again leaving even a totally static model on the shelf will often mean that a lot of the aesthetic details will go unnoticed. Finally, you would think that Star Wars would be the perfect example of how many collectors don't discern between playable or display items in their collection—after all, there is a huge culture of collectors of Star Wars merchandise ranging from actual movie props to action figures and playable toys.

    People read too much into the term "Ultimate Collectors Series" all the time, but really it doesn't have any deeper meaning than the fact that those sets are larger, more detailed, and more impressive than other Star Wars sets—the ULTIMATE Lego Star Wars items for a dedicated COLLECTOR. There's never actually been a rule that UCS sets couldn't have minifigures or play features—that's nothing more than the common AFOL tendency to try and justify excluding an item from their collection and still considering it "complete".
    I agree with you 100%.  However, I was commenting on the fact that the current Tydirium has no impact on the value of the UCS version.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,913
    Wait, wait, these are toys?
    SprinkleOtterYodaliciouskiki180703VorpalRyuVortexAmanda1983
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,374
    ^There's that nasty "value" word again ;)
    SumoLegokiki180703
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,913
    ^ Value's'ses'
    kiki180703matticus_bricks
  • bandit778bandit778 Docking Bay 94. Member Posts: 1,942
    I would love to get hold of the UCS imperial shuttle, but at current prices it is way out of my price range for a single set (meaning that I wouldn't be able to explain it away to the wife). I brought #75094 as a make do as its a wonderful ship to display but if the chance arose to get the biggy I would jump at it.
    One of the good things about the smaller ship though, is that you don't get a hernia swooshing it about the living room when you think no one is looking.
    SumoLegokiki180703Rainstorm26
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,913
    My co-workers thought it was odd when I was trying to land a mini-scale helicopter on my Tower Bridge.
    bandit778kiki180703VorpalRyuGothamConstructionCoAmanda1983
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,096
    bandit778 said:
    I would love to get hold of the UCS imperial shuttle, but at current prices it is way out of my price range for a single set (meaning that I wouldn't be able to explain it away to the wife). I brought #75094 as a make do as its a wonderful ship to display but if the chance arose to get the biggy I would jump at it.
    One of the good things about the smaller ship though, is that you don't get a hernia swooshing it about the living room when you think no one is looking.
    I previously owned the UCS Imperial Shuttle.  Beautiful model.  But it was huge especially in flight mode.  When we moved into a new house and I had a smaller office/Lego room unfortunately it had to go.  The Tydirium is actually a pretty nice looking model and similar in display quality to the recent AT-AT.  And it takes up a lot less space. 
  • LyichirLyichir United StatesMember Posts: 723
    wagnerml2 said:
    Lyichir said:
    wagnerml2 said:
    ^This.  And, always remember that the "C" in UCS stands for Collectors.  Different from Tydirium which is first and foremost designed for play.
    Implying collectors never like to play, or vice-versa. Even a model meant for display benefits from being functional, or being scaled to other figures, because it increases the number of ways you can display it. Even "play features" can be good for collectors—sure, they might not make a difference if you leave a model on display on the shelf, but then again leaving even a totally static model on the shelf will often mean that a lot of the aesthetic details will go unnoticed. Finally, you would think that Star Wars would be the perfect example of how many collectors don't discern between playable or display items in their collection—after all, there is a huge culture of collectors of Star Wars merchandise ranging from actual movie props to action figures and playable toys.

    People read too much into the term "Ultimate Collectors Series" all the time, but really it doesn't have any deeper meaning than the fact that those sets are larger, more detailed, and more impressive than other Star Wars sets—the ULTIMATE Lego Star Wars items for a dedicated COLLECTOR. There's never actually been a rule that UCS sets couldn't have minifigures or play features—that's nothing more than the common AFOL tendency to try and justify excluding an item from their collection and still considering it "complete".
    I agree with you 100%.  However, I was commenting on the fact that the current Tydirium has no impact on the value of the UCS version.
    Ah, my bad... I mixed the two up. :P
  • BuriedinBricksBuriedinBricks USAMember Posts: 1,366
    If anyone in the WI/northern IL area is still looking for #10240, the Milwaukee store still had at least 3 on the shelf this afternoon.
  • tick1970tick1970 LondonMember Posts: 117
    If anyone looking for Ninjago 70752 or 70753 there are quite a few big reduction In several Sainsburys in store
  • SprinkleOtterSprinkleOtter Member Posts: 2,731
    If anyone in the WI/northern IL area is still looking for #10240, the Milwaukee store still had at least 3 on the shelf this afternoon.
    Does anybody on here live near there? I've been trying to find an X-Wing for a while now. If anybody would be willing to sell me one for cost (or a little extra), I would appreciate it.
    FollowsCloselykiki180703
  • rlangston77rlangston77 USAMember Posts: 30
    What are people's thoughts on future value of the Lego Birds set that's out now?  Also, the Winter Toy Shop?  I heard a rumor both may be retiring soon.
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 9,349
    Winter toy shop will likely be available next holiday season. Birds set I thought already is retired (or at least it is 'Sold out' on [email protected] in the US). That one Im not sure on in terms of EOL value. It is interesting, but it is interesting enough to demand increasing prices?

    Holiday Toy shop value will likely climb as it is a Winter Village set. By how much? As it is a remake, not sure. However, the laws of Supply and Demand would say that as long there are more that what it vs those who have it it should increase.
  • rlangston77rlangston77 USAMember Posts: 30
    What are peoples thoughts on Artic Base Camp -60036?  Seems to be retired but also doesn't seem to be going up much in value. 

    Right now these are the sets i'm watching / buying right now:

    Lego Ideas: Birds - 21301
    Arctic Base - 60036
    Ewok Village
    Sandcrawler
    Pet Shop

    Too early for Slave 1 to be retiring but I have a feeling that will be a thousand dollars within 1 year of it's retirement which I think will come late this year / early next year based on rumors of new Ultimate Collectors Lego Star Wars sets supposedly releasing this year.  I think the Tie Fighter UCS that is out now is going to burn a lot of investors.  It's a classic ship but in person it was not that impressive to me.  I think it will go up once retired, obviously, but I don't think it will hit 2-3x MSRP for a long while.  I may be completely wrong but my money is on Slave 1.

    Parisian Restaurant - Probably get retired in the next 12-18 months.  I would predict this to see similar value rise as the Green Grocer if retired near that above estimated period.  This is due to the similar length of it's lifetime and the fact that the Parisian Restaurant is a beloved and beautiful set.  Buying these but not for another 6 months at least.
    Rainstorm26
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,875
    Slave 1 will increase, but not to $1000 within a year of retiring. That's just not gonna happen with the number of resellers in the game.
    FollowsCloselymadforLEGOkiki180703
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    edited January 2016

    Too early for Slave 1 to be retiring but I have a feeling that will be a thousand dollars within 1 year of it's retirement which I think will come late this year / early next year

    I can't see it hitting that price, or any set at the moment doing that well really.  The days of 4xRRP are over with the amount of people buzzing around.  Look at the amount of sealed tumblers around compared to sealed town halls even, it's a different market the last couple of years.
    If a set was going to achieve at that sort of level it would be one that came from a series that hasn't started yet, not from modulars or star wars for sure.  Maybe ferris wheel, if we see a load more fairground sets for example.  Possibly the Nexo Knights if it takes off like Ninjago (which it won't).
    pharmjodYodaliciousPitfall69kiki180703Amanda1983
  • rlangston77rlangston77 USAMember Posts: 30
    edited January 2016
    Part of the reason I say 1000 is because you have to factor in the Boba Fett movie that was announced, meaning the ship will obviously play a big part and get more screen time than it ever has before.  Also, the Han Solo movie could also feature Boba Fett and the Slave 1.  Additionally, the Slave 1 is very unique among all the other UCS ships. 

    This could lead to a situation where this set sells well but not crazy well, then after all these movies hit, suddenly everyone wants the Slave 1.  Again, just a feeling I have revolving around all of the above.  Not guaranteed, but I do still believe it's possible for it to hit those price levels around early 2018 (if it retires late 2016 / early 2017).
  • brickupdatebrickupdate Member Posts: 1,020
    An issue with sets like Slave 1, is that with a movie per year coming out, there will be more Slave 1's in the future. Or Slave 2s. And dozens more UCS sets. 

    I agree that the days of Cafe Corner aftermarket skyrocket is over. 

    The math I am trying to do is the reality I am facing for myself: I used to collect entire series of LEGO, or at least get all of the sets I felt were amazing. 

    But now there are too many. I can't afford or display all the UCS sets, modulars, and exclusives. There are too many. 

    And I'm not sure how that affects aftermarket values. The Tumbler is a cool set, but one of dozens of cool $150 sets.
    madforLEGOSumoLegokiki180703Amanda1983
  • rlangston77rlangston77 USAMember Posts: 30
    An issue with sets like Slave 1, is that with a movie per year coming out, there will be more Slave 1's in the future. Or Slave 2s. And dozens more UCS sets. 

     
    The UCS sets actually don't seem to be released super often.  They have only released 24 so far in the past 16 years and they don't really seem to be producing that many more than they used to.  This year they don't even have a set officially announced I don't believe, I think the Hoth  Battle is still a rumor.

    Sure they will produce lots more Slave 1's, etc. but the UCS Slave 1 will likely not see a remake or rerelease for a very long time, if ever.  Even if investors hoard it, it is an iconic ship that will only get more iconic as long as the movies aren't terrible.  It may take 5 years but I could easily see Slave 1 being an extremely sought after Lego item with a nice appreciation in price.  Even if it only goes to 3x MSRP, over 5 years that's still a great return that no investor, lego or otherwise, would complain about.
  • rlangston77rlangston77 USAMember Posts: 30
    Just a follow up, not here to argue with any of the points made above as some good points have been made.  Just presenting how I see it and I could be entirely, completely wrong.  Who knows what will happen.
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,875
    As someone that has been buying / selling / collecting LEGO for 16+ years I would actually be willing to put money on the fact that under no circumstances will you see Slave 1 selling for $1000 within a year after it retires. I would go so far as to say you won't see that within 3, maybe 4 or 5 years after it retires. And by "selling" I do mean routinely, verifiably selling for that, not some one off shill purchase.
    FollowsCloselyPitfall69dougtsLegoFanTexasBrickDancerkiki180703Amanda1983
  • bandit778bandit778 Docking Bay 94. Member Posts: 1,942
    I don't know much about the reseller side of lego collecting and only really read this post for possible retirement dates and the fact that it can be quite funny.

    My opinion on the price gain to be had between Slave 1 and the Tie Fighter is that I think that the Tie Fighter could well be the dark horse of the 2 and may well do better when EOL than Slave 1.
    Due to the rarity and cult status of Slave 1 especially at this size set, the majority of people who would spend the £170 on it would more or less have done so already.

    Tie fighters are always out in one form or another and despite the build ,colours etc being different most Star Wars collectors would probabley have a version, so would maybe hold off spending that amount of money on that particular set especially taking into consideration the amount of high price point sets that are currently out or due to be released, it may not become the must have buy and get missed before it goes EOL.

    The Brickset site itself speaks volumes when 4409 own Slave 1, when only 2325 own the Tie Fighter for a set that was is only released 4 months behind Slave 1.
    I know that the wants for Slave 1 are higher as well but cannot always be used as a guide as I should imagine that there are people that put stuff in their want list that they may not be able to get (10179 is on mine and I have no chance of owning that particular set). 

    Of course, as I said, I don't know much and could well be talking utter rubbish. :)
    catwranglerkiki180703
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 9,349
    edited January 2016
    Just a follow up, not here to argue with any of the points made above as some good points have been made.  Just presenting how I see it and I could be entirely, completely wrong.  Who knows what will happen.

    Lets elaborate: These are good points made by folks that have been 'in the know'  for many years here. Many of the commenters responding are people that have been either reselling, or watching/ knowing the market, for a while now. They know what they are talking about.

    Generally, I think it is every reseller's wish that a production set can hit 1K after one year of being no longer produced, but I'm fairly certain the only production set ever that may have come close to doing that was the UCS falcon (which production was part limited, and part not), when there were far less UCS Falcons. UCS Slave-1s are like any other production set: readily available for a good amount of time (at a far better price than the Falcon was by the way) for resellers (which were not in the numbers that were around when UCS falcon retired) to buy many many of. Will it go up sure? I think 400-600 in 3-5 years is a possibility (though really that could be said for many $200+ LEGO sets after 5 years EOL I think), but I fail to see 1K in a year, movie or not.
    VorpalRyukiki180703
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,875
    I would actually tend to agree with this sentiment. If Tie is a poor seller (relatively speaking) I could see it retiring before Slave 1. There is nothing to keep LEGO from turning Slave 1 into the next Death Star if it consistently sells well. That will be interesting to watch. If TIE were to make an early exit, I see it with much greater potential than Slave 1.
    VorpalRyukiki180703
  • rlangston77rlangston77 USAMember Posts: 30
    Great points about the Tie that I had not thought of.  It definitely seems like it has dark-horse potential after retirement due to the above mentioned factors.
  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Belleville, IllinoisMember Posts: 1,376
    Plus, with Disney cranking out SW spinoffs, even if Slave I goes soon, I wouldn't rule out a quick UCS rehash to correspond with something or another.
    Pitfall69madforLEGOkiki180703
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,374
    Here's the deal with Boba Fett's Slave 1; it is his father's (Jango Fett) ship, so we may see a Jango Fett's Slave 1 before a Boba Fett's Slave 1. If I am not mistaken, the movie has been delayed, so we may not get a Fett movie until 2020 and beyond.
  • danstraindepotdanstraindepot Member Posts: 170
    For all those folks loving LEGO and MASK, Transformers, Etc.:
    MASK
    TRANSFORMERS
    HE-MAN

    I know others have done 80's toys in LEGO, but I think Orion Pax is the master!


    pharmjodSupersympa
  • brumeybrumey AustriaMember Posts: 994
    they just need to produce some sand green again ... people will buy it!
  • CurvedRoadPlateCurvedRoadPlate Member Posts: 256
    Any word when the Ewok village sized Hoth set will be revealed?
  • flordflord CanadaMember Posts: 673
    May the Fourth has been mentioned.
  • ecmo47ecmo47 North CarolinaMember Posts: 2,086
    Great points about the Tie that I had not thought of.  It definitely seems like it has dark-horse potential after retirement due to the above mentioned factors.
    Not likely. Look at the B-Wing. That set is still struggling to make MSRP and it had a pretty short shelf life.
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,875
    Bwing isn't quite as iconic as the Tie and had to be clearanced at 50% off. But, that said, who knows. 
    wagnerml2kiki180703
  • brumeybrumey AustriaMember Posts: 994
    my big 3 (toywise) have been 

    he-man
    transformers
    lego
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,374
    brumey said:
    my big 3 (toywise) have been 

    he-man
    transformers
    lego
    No Star Wars????

    My Big 3:
    Star Wars
    G.I. Joe
    LEGO
    TheLoneTensorkiki180703
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy