Brickset ForumShopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Would re-releases be such a bad thing?
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 26.5K All Categories
- 16.1K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 380 The Database
- 436 Brickset.com
- 314 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 336 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 570 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
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.
Comments
If the children want to build then I'm happy to do it..
p.s. Can I just add I have never sold a Lego set, I only collect.
I also think there's scope for improving the parts-to-order so that certain pieces don't become out of reach.
I don't mean it to be low saying that you like is having things that other people don't, but that is how the collector mindset can appear. You can still collect the things, but surely it's better that other people can enjoy them too?
And when there's sets that you personally want, wouldn't you quite like to be able to buy them at closer to the original price from the actual company?
But i gave your post from yesterday some thought about prejudging the quality...and I was pondering it enough that I bought a Lepin set so that I can have a personal first hand experience with it. Will it actually get here? I don't know. But I will at least be able to see it for myself and settle it in my own mind.
Your posts from today have only bolstered your expression of that opinion and I'm doubly convinced I need to evaluate my take on the product.
Lego is not a throwaway toy, unlike most toys out there, which is part of the reason TLG can charge so much and get away with their price point.
http://bricksetforum.com/discussion/16099/lego-fight-against-chinese-counterfeit-lego#latest
I'm certainly conflicted about Lepin. I don't feel good about what they are doing, but at the same time I will never own a Lego 10179. Lepin provided me the ability to build/display a 10179 replica that (thus far) seems to be at least 95% as good as the LEGO version, from a parts/quality standpoint.
I think at this point Lepin has differentiated themselves from many of the cheap manufactures. Their ABS/brick/molding quality is really very good. not LEGO good, but damn close. it will be interesting to see where how the whole issue of IP/Design evolves with them.
AFOLs here might bemoan a missed opportunity to get one back in 2010 before it went, but to the majority of the Lego buying public, £350/$500 was a ridiculous amount back then and will probably be seen in the same vein at £450/$600 now, not to mention that a fair few of the people that would've bought one actually did buy one back then. How many units do Lego have to shift in a 2 year window to consider the set a success? There probably aren't enough people out there to consider a re-release yet. With a company of their size, with the overheads they have, they need to sell many more units than Lepin to make a release worthwhile.
For a UCS set with a big price tag, i'd be surprised if TLG would consider re-release within 10 years, they need to make sure there's enough potential buyers out there willing to part with that amount.
Moreover, I suggest that most people who actually bought what have now become coveted classics, didn't care when they bought them either. People generally didn't buy the sets like Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower, Grand Carousel or the early modulars with any thought of their future value - they bought them because they liked them and intended to build them. It's why one reason why so few of them are available on the secondary market and their prices so high. Those same people probably also give little thought to selling them.
If you buy sets where your primary interest is in their future, you're not an AFOL; you're a fan of money. The question then arises of which of those two camps individuals calling for re-releases belong. If they're just trying to complete their collection of modulars to bolster their value, then it shouldn't be surprising if TLG treated them with contempt. However, if they're genuinely interested in acquiring those sets for much the same reason as the original purchasers (i.e. that they like them), then you might hope for a more customer-friendly attitude.
There's an irony here. Those who buy a LEPIN Cafe Corner are like those original purchasers of the LEGO version - they're interested in the set itself. They're not looking at the future value because that is an unknown. So you end up in the situation where those who are most interested in the product end up shopping outside the brand.
TLG can only sell what they produce. It doesn't really matter which set that is. If they produce an additional set, say an older re-release, it doesn't mean they have completely cancel another. It shouldn't mean anything more than scaling back slightly on other sets. Hopefully, they would match production to demand reasonably well, so all the sets would be available in their required numbers.
The only "slots" are actually in people's wallets. Most people can, or will, only spend a limited amount of money. They will choose which sets they wish to buy. That could be a bit of a problem for the individual - but it is very much a personal problem. Interestingly, one possible outcome is that the number of "slots" is increased - people want more sets and are therefore prepared to spend more money. That may mean TLG have to increase production to match, but that's a situation most other companies would envy.
The obvious approach to this would be to produce batches in relatively small numbers and fulfill only direct through LEGO shop at home.
From a logistics standpoint, manufacturing/assembly/warehouse capacity would be easy to overcome issues. Dealing with out of print parts/colors would be the primary challenge. Doing quick swaps or minor redesigns to use new parts wouldn't be a huge deal to overcome, but then that raises the issue of how the potential customers would perceive the new product. If it isn't an EXACT copy, then people would view it as inferior (even it cases like upgraded doors/windows on CC it would actually be superior), and the whole prospect might just self-implode at that point.
Buying sets to collect is not thinking it's going to worth a fortune in 10 years.. if it does then so be it, and fine. But if it doesn't then I don't mind, I want the set when I bought it as I liked it.
For example I have no interest in Marvel and DC sets, so I don't buy them even when they are to retire. And if the sets become classics demanding high secondary values then great for the people that wanted them and purchased them, they can have fun with it, and when the time to pass the sets on they can be rewarded for their collection. There is nothing wrong with that.
I agree there are people out their that are only interested in the retiring sets for making cash.. and these can be found on eBay purchasing multiple sets and trying to turn them for a profit 1 week after retirement. They are certainly fans of money. And not AFOL.
But don't get people who collect, and are willing to pay what it takes to get a complete collection. Or people who collect and had the luck to buy sets previously and now they have risen considerably in the same vane..
Plus the Original UCS Falcon had to be discounted rather well (I think it was down to 375 USD) to remove the rest from stock. Ohh if I only had a crystal ball. People keep forgetting one of the main reasons why these sets are expensive now, (including the maligned Market Street) is it because they did not sell well when out: The laws of supply and demand. IMO these old sets are 'status symbols' of hard core collectors, and that does not translate into sales of hundreds of thousands of a set if redone.
I'm guessing LEGO would much rather make a set similar to a formerly produced set in order to attract all consumers to it, not just those who missed out last time.
I do not include DS in this discussion, It appears that LEGO always intended to keep the DS being made for a long long time (8 years is a good start); they just need to updated it due to changes with the figures and apparently they want to phase out of parts that maybe were only made for the old DS. My guess is the DS will be out for another 8 years, then it will likely be redone again and people will complain about the price being 600 USD.
As for the secondary market debate: IMO LEGO does not care about the secondary market (which I know is another hornets nest of a discussion). Period. LEGO sells their sets and makes X of them, period. I think the secondary market, if anything, is just free advertising for LEGO.
A collector is a different beast again - a fan of collecting - and who may or may not care about value.
I'll go back to the point I made about AFOLs buying LEPIN sets. They're not in it for the money (because that's an unknown), nor are they in it for the sake of the collection (because a LEPIN set amongst similar LEGO sets is not part of that collection). They're in it for the "fun" of taking that set, putting it together, examining it's techniques, doing some "whoosing", or just hanging it from the ceiling on display - whatever their version of "fun" means for them. They want that product for what it is - that particular set.
That is a privilege afforded to a few. Re-releasing a set simply makes it available to a larger number of people, which sounds quite reasonable. Things like value and rarity go out the window. If you start talking about investing or collecting, that's something else. There's a difference between wanting Cafe Corner because it is Cafe Corner, rather than wanting it because it's part of a set, and see its absence is an omission.
Yes. Which is why I spoke of people's primary interest, although perhaps I should've described it as their interest when making a particular purchase or discussing re-releasing a particular set..
I see this a lot with car collections. I have been fortunate to be able to know people who collect exotic/classic cars and have had access to some amazing collections. Why buy car if you don't intend to drive it? Why buy a LEGO set when you don't intend to build it? I have an example for you? I did happen to buy a Market Street when it first came out because back then I bought almost every LEGO set ;) Then, I had children and I didn't have the time to build and THEN I didn't have the room to display it even if I had the time to build it. Then, I ran out of room. Boom!!! The Market Street exploded in value and I sold it. I had every intention of building it, but life happened and I didn't. Does this make me an Non-AFOL because I didn't build it and sold it?
The idea of "slots" for certain sets may not be quite as cut and dry as introducing one rerelease and removing one new set, but things like designer workloads, shelf space at retail, promotion and advertising budgets—those things are all finite in the grand scheme of things. So given Lego's history with new designs selling better than rereleases, it should be no surprise that Lego would prefer devoting their resources to the former over the latter.
But most of those are non-existent for an in-demand re-release. The design is over and done with, and if the set is in demand you don't have to promote it; if it's not in demand, then they simply don't produce it and that's not a set we would be discussing in that regard. Retail space is determined by who sells it - and there's been a suggestion that re-releases could be limited to D2C.
Rather than using resources, other than what's actually used for production, it would actually be just a matter of cashing on resources that have already been used.
And, as I've said before, if permanently retiring sets gives the likes of LEPIN a leg-up in terms of credibility and reputation, as it has, and they subsequently go on to become a more significant competitor in some markets, as it seems they might, the policy may not have been a good idea. It isn't all about maximising the direct return on expenditure; other factors are at play.
Using Cafe Corner as an example, 110 people have bought them on BrickLink in the past six months, for an average price of around $750. But that doesn't necessarily mean there are tens of thousands of people out there who would pay $150 or more for a new one. It might just mean that there are 1,100 people out there who really want a Cafe Corner, a tenth of whom are willing to pay exorbitant amounts for it. To get more than just those 1,100 people to get it, LEGO would have to promote it about as hard as any other new modular building in order to spread the word about what exactly makes this set special.
As for the UCS Millennium Falcon, it's still extremely detailed and authentic. However, given that it didn't stick around as long as, say, the Death Star (and given that it took until the new Death Star for LEGO to put out ANY other $500 set), it's also probable that even when it was new it was well outside many people's price range. And even more so today than in 2007, its advantages over its smaller counterparts are largely cosmetic. The last two versions of the Millennium Falcon offered most of the same features — just not to exact scale with the version from the movie.
I also can't think of a lot of sets with extremely high demand that wouldn't need any design changes at all. Cafe Corner and Green Grocer are both extremely rudimentary by today's modular building standards — Cafe Corner has no interior furnishings at all, Green Grocer has minimal furnishings on the upper two floors. A lot of sets that command high prices in the aftermarket are more valuable on account of their perceived scarcity than because of any kind of design advantages (or lack of design weaknesses) compared to their modern counterparts.
And again, I don't see how re-releasing beloved older sets would do anything to hurt knock-offs like Lepin or their reputation. Lepin's retired sets may be a big part of how they got AFOLs' attention, but if they were depending on "retired" status to make money they wouldn't be knocking off sets like the Fortrex, Temple of Airjitzu, and Disney Castle. And honestly, LEGO probably cares more about Lepin as a threat to their growth and reputation in China (and to their ability to protect their IPs globally) than as a threat to their growth and reputation with the AFOL community.
This is the rationale I formulated around collecting LEGO and the solution that would resolve my frustrations as a collector.
As others have mentioned before, TLG has a finite production and storage capacity, whether we talk about factories, warehouses, or shelf space in stores. I think it is fair to say that we all want them to continue innovating and offering new products, and that is only possible by retiring sets to free space for new products. Of course, they can increase their production and storage capacity, but that can't happen over night, and infinite growth really isn't a reasonable and realistic expectation.
All their products are 'kits of parts'; fundamentally, LEGO sets weren't meant as simply standalone sets, but also means to enrich your brick collection for your own creations. The parts are sold as a set to assemble a specific design, but it is only one of the many that can be built from the kit. By giving access to the instructions online for many years after its production, anyone can use them to build a set from their own collection of parts of use them as a base for their own design.
For various reasons, through the years LEGO sets became increasingly viewed as also collectibles. While TLG does encourage such a thing to an extent with collectible minifigures, exclusive minifigures, and exclusive parts, what makes it a collectible to begin with is simply that collectors treat it as such. The fact that the value increases doesn't really have to do with the company, but with how the clients view the product.
Three things make most of those 'kits of parts' rare and desirable, because they are limited by the production run: the box, the printed manual, and the exclusive parts. From what I've read, except in the case of sealed sets boxes aren't a big deal, and instructions are available online. So the only thing stopping people to build a set after retirement is the scarcity of the exclusive parts.
In my opinion, the solution to the problem of highly sought retired sets, if we view it as a building kit, is to ensure that those parts (or equivalents) remain accessible. Most buyers aren't collectors, and don't care that much what was offered 5 years ago or will be offered in 5 years; they are buying it now and simply choose among the current offer. Inevitably the more intense fans end up learning about former sets, but could still build them by assembling the kit of parts. While this would ensure a wider availability of the set, the original production run remains a collectible because of the exclusivity of the box and the printed manual. If we take the example of the Bat-Pod, having most of the parts accessible (even of only for a short time) enabled a much wider public to assemble the kit and enjoy the set than only the 1000 winners. However, it remains a collectible because there is a finite amount of boxes and printed instruction manuals to be found. Again, TLG has a finite production and storage capacity, but keeping a bigger inventory of rare parts for a longer time would be an easier solution than offering whole sets for all eternity.
I am aware that such a solution would not satisfy everyone; the introduction of new moulds ruins the 'authenticity' of the set for many, and a greater accessibility over a longer timespan would annoy some collectors. But ultimately, the rules governing a collection are specific to each collector; you cannot blame the company for acting against your specific collecting philosophy or the interests of your individual collection.
If you are a fan of LEGO, you are a fan of building kits. If you want to build Cafe Corner but don't because a few colour changes or updated parts won't make it authentic in your eyes, then really it's your fault; you are the one defining that authenticity and its necessity.
More recently, we've seen LEPIN sets sell in the West. Not too many, because it's the "wrong" brand, and it's buying from China which could introduce all sorts of problems. I get the feeling that if they were available from a more familiar type of source, sales would increase considerably. With the exception of a couple of posters in the Far East, I doubt anybody here has seen an sort of publicity regarding them. The Internet age is different again from what has preceded it.
If you want a set to sell in large volumes then it probably needs a bit of promotion - but you wouldn't expect that from a re-release anyway. Other things manage to sell themselves in a low-key sort of way. If that's what you're intending in the first place then it works just as well, and keeps the customers happy. There are a couple of hundred new sets every year, they're not all promoted and most sell off the backs of others.
And nobody ever mentions things like #42041. It is still on sale today. I can't say I've ever seen any sort of promotion of it, and it's Technic so has a narrower appeal to start with, but it's a re-release unless you want to be very pedantic.
If you put Cafe Corner on the shelf next to Brick Bank, it would sell solely on the basis that it's not on the back of the Brick Bank box!
At the end of the day, TLG don't want to produce re-releases. That is the end of the matter and it's their choice. What must be particularly galling for AFOLs that want those sets, is that TLG go on to lie about why they don't produce them. They come up with "technical reasons" which don't actually hold water. Reintroducing a new colour doesn't mean that an old one has to disappear, especially now that their production methods have changed. It's another one of the "stories for children" that they tell like that about the cost of moulds - $100,000 sounds a lot but isn't when it'll produce maybe 100 million parts. Some people can see the flaws in those sorts of things, but an awful lot more simple feel that something's not quite right.
Nobody in the West would've heard of LEPIN without those re-releases. Nobody would dream of getting their castle because #71040 is expensive and seemingly unavailable. But that's not really the point.
Yes. And in China, and the rest of Asia, virtually the same thing is as true as it is here - nobody would've paid LEPIN any particular attention over and above any one of the hundreds of other clones, some of whom also copy LEGO sets. LEPIN used the gap in the market as an opportunity to make a name for themselves there as well as here. There are people in Asia who had partial sets of modulars in exactly the same way as in the West. They, too wanted things like Cafe Corner - and they're a bit less reticent about buying a Chinese version on markets they understand, having read reviews that they can also understand.
The end result is that the wealthier Chinese who had, say, half a dozen LEGO modulars endorsed LEPIN as a brand, and it is that which is likely to cost TLG dearly in the Asian markets. If it's good enough for those that could afford LEGO originals, it's good enough for everybody else.
Re-releasing sets now might only make a small difference but it would've made a much larger one.
Yes and no. And in a sense, we've already been there and it didn't work.
The box and manual go some way to distinguishing between those who want a set for its own sake and those who it because they're "collectors". (We're in danger of making "collector" have the same sort of negative connotations as "reseller"!) But those lines are blurred.
There are those who have BrickLinked retired sets. It's perfectly possible, but it's also a bit of a pain. Being able to do so directly from TLG would be easier, which is what the continued availability of parts would achieve, but it's prohibitively expensive.
This is what LEGO Factory was all about - and in the context of modulars, that's particularly relevant. LEGO Factory meant that people could design "sets" and others could buy it effectively by buying the collection of necessary parts. Its link to the modulars is because that was what Market Street was supposed to be - the first of many user-designed buildings.
The problem was that buying parts this way was expensive because it's labour-intensive. A "set" ended up being two or three times the price it would otherwise have been. Being able to buy Cafe Corner at two or three times list price might seem attractive to some, but its appeal would be greatly diminished. In more general terms it would just wouldn't work. And it didn't.
It is true that you don't have to buy the whole collection of bricks to make a particular set, but many people would want to on the basis it meant that the rest of their collection could continue to be used in the same was as currently. The only way of making it cost-effective for both purchaser and TLG is for those parts to have been pre-selected - i.e. a set!
For it is exactly the type of people like you who are responsible for the outrageous prices on the secondary market. People who don't care that what they are buying is maybe a collectible toy, but it is by no means worth a fortune, nor is it worth the enormous markups that some resellers command.
Also the comparison with an E-type Jag is totally ridiculous. Why? For a start, an E-type Jag was already a scarce commodity when it was available on the primary market. It was a true luxury item, bought by stars and other rich people.
Lego is a toy. Except for some exclusives like SDCC Minifigures and similar, Lego sets are produced in numbers that would make the E-type blush, of which less than 70.000 were produced over 3 series. Add to that the fact that the majority of those will have perished by now anyway. And if they haven't, they are still the luxury item they used to be.
Lego is fun to play with as well as to collect. But why should TLG give a toss about the secondary market? They don't earn one penny from the secondary market. The only people who make money on the secondary market are people reselling sets, either from their own collection or as a business. I completely agree with @Bobflip, @datsunrobbie and @parsom. You would stop buying if TLG re-released sets in order to give new customers a chance to get buy and enjoy at RRP (and made even more money from them without having to pay for the cost of designing new ones)? It would be a win-win situation for TLG as well as all those who didn't get the chance to buy those re-releases when they were around the first time.
Let me reaffirm, I absolutely hate people with an attitude like yours. Selfish beyound belief.
I need a smiley with facepalm AND rolling eyes at the same time.
But to accost someone with strong words such as 'hate' seems a bit over zealous and uncalled for. It's not their fault you can't afford what the market is bearing for a specific item or set.
I think you have the wrong picture of me.. But each to their own..
I buy current Lego all the time, and have no problem with it. After all I am helping TLG to keep up their good work in designing and bringing to market great sets.
But the aftermarket, as I have said, is something totally different imho. I don't support TLG by buying a 1K Euro Green Grocer on ebay for example, or a 5K UCS MF. Before there was Lepin, I would have just been annoyed (who said anything about whining) that I missed sets like 10185, 10224 or 10228 when they were available on the primary market. Now I can get a clone version of them for even less than the original RRP.
Do I hurt TLG by doing that? Indirectly yes, because I am supporting a company that is also cloning current Lego sets. Something they shouldn't do of course. But because they also offer those retired sets, and TLG consciously chose to not rerelease them, I am willing to dance with the devil a little, so to speak, and give Lepin some of my money that would have gone to TLG had they rereleased those sets I was looking for.
But as I am not spending one cent less on real Lego because of Lepin, I am not feeling guilty in any way.
And by they way, I have also got quite a few very rare Lego sets from the past in my collection, some of them still MISB. Would I be annoyed if TLG rereleased them? Contrary to @Fireheart I wouldn't mind at all. I would be happy for everyone who got the chance to also enjoy getting those sets for a reasonable price. And why not? After all it doesn't devalue my own sets the slightest bit, like @Fireheart seems to think and fear. Now who is selfish in this scenario I ask?
@BrickDancer: you are right, the words I used were harsh, but they are my honest reaction to the type of person that @Fireheart represents, and I stand by every word. It is what I feel about people with his attitude, 100%!
After all, someone who says
In my opinion yes they woud be a bad thing. Not just for the loyal collectors who have spent large amounts of resources accumulating the vast range of retired sets ( be it as a new release or on the secondary market)...
and
What happens if Lego starts re-releases, I'll stop collecting Lego, as the fun of it in the collector side of me will go...
imho shows his attitude quite clearly.
If you are newer to the game, you probably don't give a rat's "you know what" if resellers tug gets pulled out from underneath them.
Also lets not forget there is a third group "from which I am a member of" that falls in the middle. Yes I have a couple of decently valuable sets, but not the BIG money ones. I also have been collecting some of the current sets that history tells us could have a good Mark up in the future (GBHQ, Tower Bridge, Disney Castle, current modulars, etc). So I would be lying if I didn't say that I would LOVE if my GBHQ became worth $1,000 as soon as it retired. But I won't "quit the hobby" of it doesn't increase in value. Why? Because I'm not in it for the money really, I just love Lego and creating my "worlds".
But you know what I am going to do, once I have the time? I will break open that box, enjoy building the ship, and place it on display - until I might need its parts for a MOC another time. Or until my kids want to play with it. After all, even a Creator Expert model is still just a toy to be enjoyed by people of all ages.
Which brings me to the last paragraph of your post, to which I can only say: agree 100%
I just love Lego too, be it for creating my own worlds or just building sets right out of the box to put in a display case and enjoy every time I look at them.
@AustinPowers wins the thread. This is basically a perfect summary
Many people have no, or only idle, interest in the value of their hordes. They bought them for what they are - sets to be made - and made them, or intend to make them when they find the time.
I have many prestigious sets, all bought from retailers. I think it is a great pity that those who are seriously interested in having them, building them, examining them, comparing them, modifying them, whatever, are unable to do so, and that even more people will be find themselves in that position in the future. I do not know whether re-releases would be a good idea overall, but I'm certainly not against it because of my personal position and any theoretical effect it would have on the value of sets I already own. I am not the only one.
Good luck with your Lepin set. May I ask which one you bought?
I don't think that anyone can honestly say "I don't care about the value of my collection." and be that an absolute. If your collection gets stolen or goes up in flames and the insurance adjuster says "Here's your check for $500 for your Lego." , but your collection is worth $10,000; I think everyone's reaction would be "No way!!! My collection is worth more than $500!!!" If you truly don't care about the value of your Lego, then $500 should be sufficient, but who are we kidding right? ;)
Some of us will fall on hard times and may need to sell some, most or all of their Lego; I have seen it happen right here in the forum. In this situation, you would definitely care about the value of your Lego collection.
I am not one to believe in absolutes; additudes and circumstaces change over time.
I care about my collection because of it's display/play value. if someone stole it, I wouldn't want enough from the insurer to replace what I had so I can have the same collection I had before. I wouldn't care if the collection was worth $100 or $10,000 - as long as the insurance pays to replace it.
The U.S.S. Constellation set was never sold in USA/Canada... thus giving the North American folks a 2003 chance to get an example of that rare older model, and the Main Street Set was never sold outside of the USA, thus giving a 2003 chance for other countries to get a version of that set.
Will TLG do re-releases again? I don't know.... but I wouldn't count them out... They probably don't care if they piss off resellers, and I doubt it will put a dent in their bottom line. AFOLs after all are still a minority of LEGOs bottom line.... and they will do whatever will make them money.
Getting insurance may require you to be concerned about the value. That rather depends on how insurance works in a particular country or with a particular insurer, and therefore may still be of no consequence.
The important bit there is that you would care - in the future. But not now unless you are in a high-risk situation and are effectively, and knowingly, using your collection as insurance. That doesn't apply to most people, so they can happily drift from day today without considering the value.
1. Those that are in it strictly for financial gain
2. Those that are in it purely for the love of Lego.
3. Those that Love Lego, but wouldn't be mad if their collection became valuable.
But like Pitfall69 said, even those that claim they are soley in group 2, they are still plenty aware how much money they have tied up in the hobby, and I doubt would give away ANYTHING for less than it's value. So perhaps only 2 real groups exist.
Apparently, you've missed out on some desirable sets. Accept it. It's not LEGO's fault, nor is it any fault of proud collectors or greedy resellers. There's no one to blame but yourself.
At least you've found an alternative in buying clone sets at what you feel is a more "proper" price. Sure, they'll never be the real thing, but you seem to be happy with them. Which brings me to the following question: If you're happy buying clones of retired sets and are satisfied with their quality, why do you feel there's a need for LEGO to re-release them?