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.
75187 BB-8 - UCS or not?
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.2K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 385 The Database
- 438 Brickset.com
- 316 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 337 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 571 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
IMO if Lego have called something UCS either on box branding or retrospectively on official marketing material give it a UCS tag. Otherwise, I think the label just becomes even more arbitrary than they have already made it.
Although I disagree with your point a "Plaque" tag would not be a bad idea along with a "micro scale" and "oversize scale (is there a better word for it)" tag.
Put it this way if BB8 was in a box which had UCS on it would we have a thread asking if it was worthy of being called UCS, I don't think so.
I think we make too much of UCS, as collectors we like labels but Lego doesn't show enough consistence for these labels to mean anything.
But much more importantly can we change the name of Advanced Models to Creator Expert.
^ Just you wait @CCC - they'll manage to mess it up someday...
@lostintranslation - You're absolutely right, if you're after that specific model and you know what it is called (right now, that is easy for BB8, but might not remain so, nor might it apply to other sets).
I use tags when I want to compare a range of models, like "all the space shuttle sets" or something. It's not ideal, as there's no one tag that contains just the right things I'm looking for, and I suspect that's probably true for anyone who uses tags - hence this query in the first place, probably?
FWIW, I'm happy it remains off the list of UCS, because it would be one less set I have to mentally filter out of my list of 'UCS spaceships'.
I'd also like to be able to search for all licensed sets but there's no tag for that either!
IMO, if Lego hasn't called it a UCS set (as yet) then it shouldn't be labelled as such on the database.
Personally though, if it looks good and is a nice build, I don't care what they call it, I will still buy it.
Yes "Licensed" would be a good tag but is the Lego movie Licensed?
Tower Bridge was not released under Creator Expert but the updated box has Creator Expert on it. So Lego has decided (not me) that past sets in the same line were Creator Expert sets even if they didn't have it on the box.
So lets have a look at what comes under Advanced Models, there are 56 sets:
Of these 43 are in themes that are now called Creator Expert:
12 Modular Buildings
9 Winter Village
6 Large Vehicles
5 Micro Buildings
4 Trains
4 Fairground
3 Ships
10 are in themes that haven't been made since 2013 when the Creator Expert label was first used but if made now would come under Creator Expert.
5 Aircraft
3 Sculptures
2 Real Space
3 are odd ducks:
10210 Imperial Flagship
10184 Town Plan
10190 Market Street
I don't see much wrong with putting at least 53 of them under Creator Expert as that is what Lego is calling them now.
But then I might have Town and City as one theme too.
"Feeling" like it should be UCS and grouping it like that in the system means a user will have to begin second guessing the system itself as to where things may be stored, which isnt healthy for any computerised database. In the interests of mainting a consistent, accessible user system it shouldn't be Ucs – in the Brickset database – until its "official" (while conveniently sweeping the other past discrepancies under the carpet :P)
Call it what you like for yourselves but specifically for a computer database, its a slippery slope.
@SMC The problem is that all Creator Expert sets are Advanced Models, but not all Advanced Models are Creator Expert sets. ;-)
Or, until LEGO says they all are.
10188 and 10236 are not controversial all that much - they are clearly as much playset as model, but #10221 would be the odd outlier. It *CLEARLY* checks every box that you would ask as UCS set to check - except for the one you have determined should be the sole arbiter of such status. Comments?
It shows the problem with using gut feelings to assign labels. If BB-8 (or EV or ...) is allowed as UCS, bending one "rule"*, then why not allow the Hellicarrier and other non-SW sets in as well, bending another "rule". How many "rules" does a set have to meet before it is not allowed as UCS. So should the Disney Castle be UCS, for example? Or the Simpsons House. I doubt they will ever do another Simpsons House, so in one sense, that is going to be the ultimate version.
* Obviously these are presumed rules, as there appear not to be any hard and fast rules.
As a result, going with a single rule like the one you suggested doesn't solve the ultimate problem all that much better than the guy feel process. 10221 is obviously a UCS set. Having a UCS list that excludes it because it wasn't called UCS by LEGO marketing at some point would be silly. Yet that's what would happen if your rule was folliwed
unfortunately I don't believe there is one simple hard and fast rule which allows us to create the UCS list. LEGO hasn't followed it, nor provided consistency that would allow us to derive it, therefore it is somehat subjective at this point
I have several Fender Stratocasters. Two of them, from across the room, appear to be identical, but one has a 50th Anniversary badge. That one is a 50th Anniversary model, the other one is not, and the only difference is the badge. It would be silly for me to say they are both 50th Anniversary models.
The 10221 is the ultimate iteration of that ship (the only iteration) and very collectable. I'd call it a UCS. Looks far more worthy of the tag than a few confirmed UCS.
The difference is, we weren't asked about #10221 ... :-)
People keep bringing up older sets without any UCS markings on the box, but in general, all of those would be considered UCS if the current definition were applied retroactively. The only grey area there is that I don't remember if the original two UCS sets were D2C. But in their case they are clearly labeled as UCS.
Apparently someone at LEGO Group saw your post and decided that #75192 will be sold through other channels besides D2C, for the sake of consistency. :)
I emailed them about it a while ago and never got a response. Maybe one of you guys with more of a presence in the afol community can get one
When it comes to BB-8, it is clear that it does not fit with other UCS sets of recent times. Although it looks like a UCS set, it is not marketted that way. It has no badge or branding, it is not D2C. So it appears not to fit with the current "definition" used by LEGO.
Of course it is all just fan theories. I don't think LEGO really cares about it. They want to get as wide an audience as possible for the relatively cheap BB-8 set (compared to most other UCS sets) and so it goes into more general stores. If that means they don't use UCS branding, then it is up to them. If they don't want two UCS sets in the same year, it is up to them. The set is still the same set. If people want to call it UCS that is fine, if others don't that is also fine. I've never really understood the "collect only UCS sets" line anyway, UCS means nothing about the model just about how it is branded / sold.
If BB-8 is included now, then other sets of the past could also have been included, even if surpassed now. For example #10144 the original Sandcrawler could be a candidate - although it was sold via general retail, and it was up against a much more UCS-looking set in the same year (DS II) - so it is just like BB-8 is now, not branded as UCS, sold at general retail and there was another UCS in same year. However, for the time it looked like an ultimate version of a Sandcrawler, even if it has now been surpassed. #10195 could be another, this was D2C and not general retail and a large detailed model (or pair) and there was not even another UCS that year (although DS had just come out in 2008 which wasn't UCS but is listed as UCS, so the same could have applied to 10195 if Huw had wanted). 2006 is a funny year - ISD isn't UCS, but two smaller sets, Tie and AT-ST, are. So then it appears size isn't an issue.
The point about the "question" is until now, Huw or admins have decided what gets tagged as UCS and what isn't. I think this is the first time users have been asked. There are clearly different views - yes, no, don't care. What is important for the brickset database is that admins decide what it is.
I think much easier definition for Star Wars is the D2C definition which can be found here on Brickset when you look at the D2C tag for Star Wars sets. It includes all UCS sets + EV, 10131, 10144, Tantive IV, Motorized AT-AT, 10195, Cloud City ...
"The decision has been made to change the packaging for future 'LEGO exclusive' Star Wars sets to include the UCS seal and de-link from the core Star Wars packaging."
Based on that, the style of packaging alone excludes #75187 BB-8 from UCS.
I wonder if @Huw could provide more details as to where the source for that quote can be found?
So ultimately I'd say it doesn't matter whether it gets a UCS classification or not.
I see this tendency a lot in LEGO discussions too, especially in categorization discussions like this. It gets kinda tiresome.
its annoying isn't it?
Does all this mean that when I bought #10221 as one of my must have UCS sets, I was duped by Brickset?! They had better recompense me or they'll hear from my lawyers! ;-)
As for ST not being Star Wars? Eh? That's taking gatekeeping to a whole new level, IMO. I may be quite disinterested in anything other than 4-6, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't exist or ignore the positive aspects of them.
But the prequels are awful.
ST is probably not a good abbreviation when discussing SW.
"E.T. phone Batman"...