Predictions on Discontinuing Sets and their Secondary Market Value

ReesesPieces · January 2016

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!

monkeyhanger · 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!).

CircleK · January 2016

ReesesPieces said:

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.

Pitfall69 · January 2016

Many of the 80's cartoons; like He-Man, G.I. Joe A Real American Hero and Transformers, were made to sell the toys.

Pitfall69 · 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.

wagnerml2 · January 2016

^This. And, always remember that the "C" in UCS stands for Collectors. Different from Tydirium which is first and foremost designed for play.

wagnerml2 · January 2016

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!

Lyichir · January 2016

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".

Sethro3 · January 2016

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.

xwingpilot · January 2016

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...

catwrangler · January 2016

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!

wagnerml2 · January 2016

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.

SumoLego · January 2016

Wait, wait, these are toys?

Pitfall69 · January 2016

^There's that nasty "value" word again ;)

SumoLego · January 2016

^ Value's'ses'

bandit778 · January 2016

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.

SumoLego · January 2016

My co-workers thought it was odd when I was trying to land a mini-scale helicopter on my Tower Bridge.

mathew · January 2016

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.

Lyichir · January 2016

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

BuriedinBricks · January 2016

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.

tick1970 · January 2016

If anyone looking for Ninjago 70752 or 70753 there are quite a few big reduction In several Sainsburys in store

SprinkleOtter · January 2016

BuriedinBricks said:

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.

rlangston77 · January 2016

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.

madforLEGO · January 2016

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.

rlangston77 · January 2016

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.

Pitfall69 · January 2016

No way Slave 1 gets to $1,000 1 year after retirement. The days of Cafe Corner, MS and Green Grocer money are over. You will be lucky to get even 2.5-3x RRP for the sets that are currently available after they retire. There are just too many people sitting on stock.

pharmjod · January 2016

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.

MattsWhat · January 2016

rlangston77 said:

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).

rlangston77 · 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).

brickupdate · January 2016

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.

rlangston77 · January 2016

brickupdate said:

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.

rlangston77 · 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.

pharmjod · January 2016

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.

bandit778 · January 2016

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. :)

madforLEGO · January 2016

rlangston77 said:

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.

pharmjod · January 2016

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.

rlangston77 · January 2016

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.

wagnerml2 · January 2016

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.

Pitfall69 · January 2016

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.

danstraindepot · January 2016

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!

brumey · January 2016

they just need to produce some sand green again ... people will buy it!

CurvedRoadPlate · January 2016

Any word when the Ewok village sized Hoth set will be revealed?

flord · January 2016

May the Fourth has been mentioned.

ecmo47 · January 2016

rlangston77 said:

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.

pharmjod · January 2016

Bwing isn't quite as iconic as the Tie and had to be clearanced at 50% off. But, that said, who knows.

brumey · January 2016

my big 3 (toywise) have been

he-man
transformers
lego

Pitfall69 · January 2016

brumey said:

my big 3 (toywise) have been

he-man
transformers
lego

No Star Wars????

My Big 3:
Star Wars
G.I. Joe
LEGO

Ronyar · January 2016

I would have been Star Wars, Lego, Transformers for toys. Football cards would have been very high up there, if you consider them like toys.

SprinkleOtter · January 2016

Mine was:
LEGO.
LEGO.
LEGO.

brumey · January 2016

was rocking castle greyskull and snake mountain
and a battle cat with armor!

my mum donated them to some hillbilly kids

Predictions on Discontinuing Sets and their Secondary Market Value

Comments

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories