Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Hello, everyone! Today I am bringing up a subject that could determine the future of one particular set in our database.
As you may know, 75187 BB-8 is a large-scale droid set that was just released on September 1st. However, even though we currently have it under the Last Jedi subtheme, there is no doubt there are huge differences between it and the other six minifig-scale sets in the wave. That begs the question... should we label it an Ultimate Collector Series set?
- It is a large-scale, System-built figure done in the style of 10225 R2-D2, a UCS set from 2012.
- Like R2, it is built in a similar scale, has a display plaque, and includes the minifig version of the titular droid as well.
- Unlike other recent UCS sets, it does not have a gold badge on the box, and is available in most retail locations rather than only at shop.LEGO.com and LEGO Brand Stores.
- While released alongside the first wave of Last Jedi sets, BB-8 does not only go with this new film but is representative of the entire sequel trilogy. So, is the Last Jedi subtheme really the most appropriate place for it?
We are aware of the attachments many may have to the UCS series, as well as what may qualify as a set and what doesn't (just look at Assault on Hoth). However, through your opinion we can come up with a designation that most can agree with.
So the real question is - The Last Jedi, or Ultimate Collector Series?
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions •
Still not a UCS.
It it has a plaque like some UCS sets. It is a large single model like others in the series. It is not scaled the same as the other non ucs sets (i.e. minifig scale).
I know now it does not have a badge and therefore is not officially a ucs set. But it has the qualities of one which is how the database has classified previous non ucs sets.
Also, who are the many others thinking it shouldn't be labelled as such? Most of what I see in this thread (and article comments) so far suggests otherwise.
This topic has merit; it's a healthy debate.
I do, however, stand by the last bit about TLG being torn and going for a kind of middle ground.
Having said that, I absolutely agree that the new set includes a number of features which we can associate with the Ultimate Collector's Series. I imagine it lacks the branding simply because LEGO thought it was worthy of selling alongside standard retail sets to the widest possible audience.
It needs friction pins.
If it does have the UCS tag attached to it, then so should any other sets that are like Obi-Wan's Starfighter and Naboo Starfighter, these are both UCS so others similar to those should be included. Also why not apply it to other non-UCS sets like the Helicarrier, Tumbler, Disney Castle, Haunted House, Helm's Deep, etc that some people think are UCS based on size, a plaque, etc. It becomes meaningless if fans get to say what is what, and there will never be consensus.
The question is really should the database be based on actualities/facts or should it be based on feelings?
UCS sets are very diverse, the only common thing that differentiate them from regular sets is that LEGO refer to them as UCS.
It would display well with other UCS sets, esp given the plaque, display stand and scale of the set.
Is it an official UCS set? - nope.
For some reason, Lego omitted this from the UCS family. Maybe an error, maybe so other UCS sets could be produced under the UCS budgets internally...I would imagine the Falcon absorbed a lot of time/money within the Lego group.
But, as always in life the answer is 42.
4 u 2 decide...
A similar argument could be made to remove the UCS tag from the UCS Hoth set. It is officially a UCS set, but it seems many AFOLs hate it being one. It's a rehash of old sets, it's a play set not a display set, the plaque, ...
Would users of the database be happy if that was removed based on feelings, even if it ultimately leads to an inaccurate database?
46 UCS sets so far ... UCS's have only been associated with Star Wars, Batman, DC Comics Super Heroes, & Marvel Super Heroes
Most UCS's are Direct To Consumer sets so I might as well include this set. While not a UCS, it's still big enough to act like one. (Diagon Alley)
2013 starts with another branching off! In fact, this year has a whole bunch of branching off! Anyways, the first DC Comics Super Heroes "UCS" is this set right here. (Arkham)
What did I say? A second branching off of "UCS" in the same year! (Orthanc)
What do you have it, 2014 starts with a branching off as well with The Simpsons!
Wow! Yet another branching off this year! This "UCS" gives us our first boat set for the title. (Sea Cow)
The last thing 2014 brought us was an actual UCS from DC Comics Super Heroes. So, it does make it in the line-up of themes with UCS's (Tumbler)
Marvel decides to make a UCS set this year with this right here. Right now, it's the only UCS Marvel set but, of course, it could still change. (Helicarrier)
2016 kicks off relatively alright with this Ghostbusters set. It's nice that we get another branched off "UCS". Plus, this is the third biggest LEGO set made! (GBHQ)
2016 also gives us another DC Comics Super Heroes UCS! (Batcave)
And so we come to present day. This time, Pirates Of The Caribbean comes back from the dead along with this ghost ship in this set! (It's amazing how many branching offs we've had in about 4 years!) (Silent Mary)
Ninjago City, Minecraft The Village and The Mountain Cave, Disney Castle, Silent Mary, GBHQ, Batcave, Quik-E-Mart and Simpsons House, Helicararrier, Tumbler, Sea Cow, Orthanc, Arkham, Diagon Alley, ..
If Silent Mary is UCS, then why not Destiny's Bounty (and Imperial Flagship)? Diagon Alley but not Hogwarts Castle? Why not all the Modulars, the Old Fishing Store, Big Ben, Taj Mahal, Tower Bridge, etc ...
Additionally, if we just get to pick what counts as ucs' I think that #10228 haunted house should be a modular
No, that's clearly a plaque-less UCS set! It needs the side technic pins to be a modular. Unless you claim it is pin-less modular as it needs to have a plaque to be a UCS ... :-)
Then also have another label, USC-like, or something similar, for sets that the database maintainers think are like UCS sets.
This would solve the issue for old sets that maybe Lego should have put the label on, and solve it for sets that look like UCS sets but are not.
Of course the argument will move to should it be classified as UCS-like, but hopefully less so as it is more clearly based on the maintainers decisions.
And then does anyone really care if The Silent Mary is a "near miss UCS" set but the Imperial Flagship isn't? Or Diagon Alley is but Ninjago City isn't?
I also don't see what benefit there is in creating a third category for "Non UCS Non Star Wars but large sets", when it's really quite simple already in the database to search for large sets:
Home > Browse > Sets > Normal
Sort by Number of pieces (desc)
Then filter by theme or tag or year as desired.
(I have also always been a bit dubious about the merits of the Advanced Models theme but that's a whole other can of worms :-)
so LEGO's own inconsistencies and lack of clarity is why this conversation exists in the first place
regarding BB-8, I really don't care. But judging by its characteristics, it is much much more similar to a SW UCS set than it is to a SW non-UCS set
I know everyone has their own opinion and the a true UCS is a display model; but leave it to yourself to decide what is UCS. Some of the sets consider UCS others would not and I'm OK with that.
- The Box/Instructions states it UCS
- The Set comes with an UCS plaque
- It's number in the 10xxx
I don't have a horse in this race, as I have three categories I define my criteria on: Have, Want, Don't Care. I'm trying to find options that others might want.
The idea of finding it by year is all very well and good until we're 5 years down the line and we can't remember (or new people have yet to find out) which year it was released in and have pages and pages to look through, even when sorting by parts or filtering by sequel trilogy or whatever.
I don't care how Lego have categorised it, as they're inconsistent at best and ignorantly divisive at worst. If we have a tag that not many people use, then so be it - it's exactly a massive overhead to just have it hanging around, and if it's not useful, delete it. As to what might go in such a tag, I'd say all of them. ALL OF THEM! Anything that has ever been considered a 'near miss' or even a 'near near miss'. But not anything @CCC suggests, just because :-P (joking).
Or if you're looking for large Star Wars sets, search for Star Wars and sort by parts descending.
I think I must be missing the point of what a tag would achieve here?
At the end of the day, for me, UCS is a label that LEGO have come up with and have applied it illogically. The logical part of me says the database should only have the UCS tag on sets LEGO have deemed to be UCS.
But I know there are a group of sets that are for "collectors" and fit a certain pattern. And many of those aren't necessarily Star Wars, and are not labelled UCS. But BB-8 isn't a large set, so it would be way down the list.
I think people who consider BB-8 a UCS style set are considering it on many parameters, not size, but the display stand, the plaque, the style, and so on, making it something that collectors would display.
That same definition fits sets like the BatMobile which isn't "UCS" but is that sort of display piece that people keep on a shelf to show people.
I have no idea what to call such a tag, except "detolf" springs to mind :-D
Is the plaque the main point of debate? Why not just do a "Plaque" tag then?
It's one of the main criteria. But some people think UCS should only apply to Star Wars too, for example. I think a "Plaque" tag a good start.