What is the next set to be remade?

kbw · October 2017

So do you all like that these sets are being remade or rereleased? As someone that missed out on some of these things, it's cool to have a second chance. However, I think some of the appeal for me as a collector is that these things retire and go away forever. It's also cool to have things that others missed out on. Curious what everyone things about this

MaffyD · October 2017

Well, I was very surprised to see the Taj Mahal getting a rerelease. They kept that quiet.

Obviously, there is a positive effect of anyone unable to get it when it first came out or who cannot afford the secondary market prices can now get one (if they have hundreds of pounds to spare - it is still not cheap).

Those who have a few of these sets in storage and wanted to make a huge profit from selling MISB will now be longer able to make quite as much I imagine, but that's the problem with a speculative market like Lego anyway.

I do feel (a bit) for those who like the 'desirability' of a set, and that they have a piece of history which cannot be replaced, and yes - exclusivity has a certain cachet. But they do have the original, it's theirs and they've had it for all this time. To want others to not have a copy just so they can feel a bit smug* - I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment.

Finally, the 'slot' used for this model could have gone to a different, new model - but I'm not sure it would have, as this is a straight redo of the old one, so no new parts, no new design, no new testing or production changes (except to crank up on the white I suppose). The only investment Lego did before releasing this is a bit of market research (presumably). Let's hope they did it right.

I'd feel awful if I bought it recently on the after market at a hugely inflated price though.

* please insert a better word here if you can find it. I couldn't think of one...

MaffyD · October 2017

Someone was very unhappy yesterday:

https://www.brothers-brick.com/2017/10/30/lego-re-release-taj-mahal-news/#comment-101624

Speedman29 · October 2017

I'd like to see the Maersk train #10219 re-released. Only just getting into trains now, but I was so tempted to pull the trigger on it when I saw it in a toy shop for £60. Big regret.

CCC · October 2017

alaskaguy said:

CCC said:

alaskaguy said:

The nice thing is, if Lego re-releases it, one doesn't have to risk buying it on the secondary market. Why buy secondary when you can buy from Lego?

It is more than that. Even if they don't re-release it, then secondary market sales will still be hit for the foreseeable future, now there is a good chance they will re-release it.
I see that as a good thing. People who want it, as a toy, but who have been unable or unwilling to buy it at inflated prices will be more able to obtain it from those who have no interest in it as a toy, but only as a profit center.

I hope Lego's move has the effect to depressing prices on "non-Lego-obtainable" sets across the board, making them more available to "the average guy".

You might actually find that this means that sets become less available to the average guy, not more available. Once LEGO retire the set, people cannot buy them unless from a reseller. If resellers do not buy into LEGO as an investment now, that means that either the average guy buys the set when LEGO sells it, or they don't get one. They might be able to buy a used one from a collector if they get rid of their collection, but they won't be able to purchase new. They will have to wait to see if LEGO decides to do another re-release in future.

CCC · October 2017

Diggydoes said:

I don't own the Original Taj,but Bricklinked it a couple yrs ago (and sold it straight),to me at first glance the new one looks exact like the Original one (correct me if i'm wrong)?! If so,i'm pretty sure it's a shot at the sec.market!

PapaBear said:

The only reasons for a rerelease is to shake off resellers (which might help boost some aftermarket value in the long run) and to stop Lepin.

I guess we will never know if it is an attack on resellers and / or Lepin and other clones, but with this one it seems that LEGO is taken the approach of "we can make money without spending it on design". I said it on the other thread, this looks like short term gain (people buying a reasonably sought after set) but with longer term problems (killing off the secondary market for large sets, hence future large primary market set sales).

Bobflip · October 2017

PapaBear said:

The only reasons for a rerelease is to shake off resellers (which might help boost some aftermarket value in the long run) and to stop Lepin. Remember, the official standpoint of LEGO is that they don't benefit at all from the aftermarket, so they don't care about the perceived value of LEGO declining, in respect to aftermarket prices, or Lepin getting a few sales from people that want sets no longer in production. The real threat from Lepin is that if people buy a few discontinued sets from them, they may realize the decent quality of Lepin and the cost being 25-50% of Lego is enough to shift a significant amount of sales away from LEGO to Lepin.

I think there's a third reason - which is to profit from a demand which previously they have both created and let slip through their fingers.

Bobflip · October 2017

CCC said:

alaskaguy said:

CCC said:

alaskaguy said:

The nice thing is, if Lego re-releases it, one doesn't have to risk buying it on the secondary market. Why buy secondary when you can buy from Lego?

It is more than that. Even if they don't re-release it, then secondary market sales will still be hit for the foreseeable future, now there is a good chance they will re-release it.
I see that as a good thing. People who want it, as a toy, but who have been unable or unwilling to buy it at inflated prices will be more able to obtain it from those who have no interest in it as a toy, but only as a profit center.

I hope Lego's move has the effect to depressing prices on "non-Lego-obtainable" sets across the board, making them more available to "the average guy".

You might actually find that this means that sets become less available to the average guy, not more available. Once LEGO retire the set, people cannot buy them unless from a reseller. If resellers do not buy into LEGO as an investment now, that means that either the average guy buys the set when LEGO sells it, or they don't get one. They might be able to buy a used one from a collector if they get rid of their collection, but they won't be able to purchase new. They will have to wait to see if LEGO decides to do another re-release in future.

Isn't this a bit like the situation we already had, except that now there will be more in existence? With more existing prices will be lower, and there will still be non-resellers getting rid of their sets on places like eBay.

MaffyD · October 2017

I wonder what proportion of 'big set' buyers think of the resale value further down the line before they bring home a big set... And I bet the situation is a lot more complicated than that one consideration - trends and statistics can change due to a huge number of variables.

SumoLego · October 2017

MaffyD said:

Someone was very unhappy yesterday:
https://www.brothers-brick.com/2017/10/30/lego-re-release-taj-mahal-news/#comment-101624

For those too lazy to click through:

Someone seems to have overlooked that LEGO is in the business of selling as much product at the highest margins the market will demand. They don't produce 'collectors items'. Which, by the way, is a total pile of marketing jargon to identify something as a 'collector's item'.

And the fact he seems to have missed that most of the elements of the CC are included in AS.

Bobflip · October 2017

SumoLego said:

MaffyD said:

Someone was very unhappy yesterday:
https://www.brothers-brick.com/2017/10/30/lego-re-release-taj-mahal-news/#comment-101624

For those too lazy to click through:

Someone seems to have overlooked that LEGO is in the business of selling as much product at the highest margins the market will demand. They don't produce 'collectors items'. Which, by the way, is a total pile of marketing jargon to identify something as a 'collector's item'.

And the fact he seems to have missed that most of the elements of the CC are included in AS.

Hahaha, someone's a bit salty! The point of Lego is to be played with. It's literally part of the name.

CCC · October 2017

Bobflip said:

CCC said:

alaskaguy said:

CCC said:

alaskaguy said:

The nice thing is, if Lego re-releases it, one doesn't have to risk buying it on the secondary market. Why buy secondary when you can buy from Lego?

It is more than that. Even if they don't re-release it, then secondary market sales will still be hit for the foreseeable future, now there is a good chance they will re-release it.
I see that as a good thing. People who want it, as a toy, but who have been unable or unwilling to buy it at inflated prices will be more able to obtain it from those who have no interest in it as a toy, but only as a profit center.

I hope Lego's move has the effect to depressing prices on "non-Lego-obtainable" sets across the board, making them more available to "the average guy".

You might actually find that this means that sets become less available to the average guy, not more available. Once LEGO retire the set, people cannot buy them unless from a reseller. If resellers do not buy into LEGO as an investment now, that means that either the average guy buys the set when LEGO sells it, or they don't get one. They might be able to buy a used one from a collector if they get rid of their collection, but they won't be able to purchase new. They will have to wait to see if LEGO decides to do another re-release in future.

Isn't this a bit like the situation we already had, except that now there will be more in existence? With more existing prices will be lower, and there will still be non-resellers getting rid of their sets on places like eBay.

Not necessarily. For the next couple of years, yes, there will be more Taj Mahals available - direct from LEGO. But once it (or other similar large sets) is retired, then I expect there to be less available than there would have been if this was a different but similar set. Investors will not invest in them unless there is a big discount, as there is the chance that they will be remade again in another 5-10 years. Thus unless LEGO decides to market it continually forever, new sets will be harder to find after retirement due to the lack of them bought by investors for the future secondary market. Even if LEGO don't remake the remake, it is too late, since the possibility of a remake will have already put off many investors.

It will of course depend on stock levels. If LEGO makes loads and they do not sell, they will have to discount. It might be that they make less than they would have otherwise have done to satisfy current demand for say two years and leave it at that. Whereas if resellers were actively buying, they could have sold more in the two year period, which feeds into the demand during the retirement period.

Bumblepants · October 2017

Speedman29 said:

I'd like to see the Maersk train #10219 re-released. Only just getting into trains now, but I was so tempted to pull the trigger on it when I saw it in a toy shop for £60. Big regret.

They have abandoned the old Maersk blue brick color though. (See the Triple-E set) so if it did re-release it would probably be in Med. Azure which would be a shame as the old color is magnificent.

Fireheart · October 2017

All this seems to have brought up various ideas of what Lego is / was / should be. And I think this has been brought to a head at Lego by the recent Millennium Falcon release.
I would love to know as a % of September 14th sales of the MF;
How many have been purchased by Lego fans and actually built them?
How many have been snapped up by resellers and flipped for a quick profit?
How many have been purchased by “Lego fans” and collected / stored for a long term profit?

With this in mind Lego have sent a very clear message to the latter two of what they can do at any time, with any set, no matter how long ago it was retired. Hence why the news of this Taj Mahal release was so hush hush..

The only problem is that a lot of Lego fans including on Fansites are actually a mixture of the first and third in general for Lego, and this type of Lego fan is the one that this Taj Mahal news has niggled the most.
This type of Lego fan is also one that more than likely spends the most directly with Lego..

CCC · October 2017

Don't forget ...

How many have been snapped up by "Lego fans" and flipped for a quick profit?

It wouldn't surprise me if some (real) lego fans (who don't consider themselves resellers, scalpers, whatever you want to call it) buy one, sell it for a substantial short term profit and then buy again when it is more readily available.

And the middle one is the one that damages lego most - if resellers buy out all stock of a high demand current set it makes lego look bad, with so much put into advertising a set that buyers cannot buy. Yet this is the most likely way to profit from a set like this these days - don't invest for the long term, instead quick flip current sets that are short stocked by LEGO.

PapaBear · October 2017

kbw said:

So do you all like that these sets are being remade or rereleased? As someone that missed out on some of these things, it's cool to have a second chance. However, I think some of the appeal for me as a collector is that these things retire and go away forever. It's also cool to have things that others missed out on. Curious what everyone things about this

I'm glad newcomers can get these sets. I remember the feeling of missing out on some sets right as I got back into LEGO. I don't see a reason to do an exact rerelease though. It should have been updated. The sets that are close enough to be a rerelease (Falcon, Winter Toy Shop, and Taj Mahal) seem to be the ones that were the most expensive sets on the aftermarket. That suggests the main target for this set are people that want the old one. I hope that demand is big enough. They could have appealed to more collectors by just upgrading it a little bit like they did for the Falcon. $370 is a lot of money for a LEGO set. I can't justify that without a sale. I really can't justify most of the big sets now without a sale. I'll have to return a bunch of sets I bought during this past double VIP too. TLG clearanced the Imperial Flagship, Emerald Night, and even 10179 because it didn't have enough buyers, collectors, AFOLs interested at the time. They have since gained so many fans that they were able to stop discounts altogether. I think we will see discounts come back.

playwell · October 2017

I think people are missing the point that the idea that Lego sets hold and even increases in value helps Lego enormously.

Even before the concept of AFOL's and Adults sets this was the case. When I was a kid Lego cost more than cheaper toys but my mum would say "Lego lasts you can pass in down once your done with it.

How does Lego get people to pay £650 for a Lego set, by have perceived value. If you have it in your head that a UCS MF cost thousands then hundreds seems like a good deal.

Lego also does well from collecting, the I need to have them all mindset. I think by making lines too large and having too many large sets Lego are oversaturating the market. If a line has 6 sets you might try and buy them all but if you feel its impossible to buy them all you might only get a couple and Lego loss sales by having too much choice. Also if a 3000 piece set is normal then you don't get excited about it.

How many of us buy a set because we might want it one day and we don't want to miss out because the after market price becomes too high. If aftermarket prices become too reasonable and if the best sets get remade ever few years then I can just wait.

Lego do profit from the after market and that's before you even consider people buying Lego just to resell. I think Lego are really harming the long term AFOL market.

I don't own the Taj Mahal and I am not a reseller so I don't have a vested interest. But I am a collector and a completest and after this year I will be changing the way I buy Lego because I can no longer complete a lot of my collection and Lego have harmed the collecting side with rereleases.

Lego got a lot more of my money this year then I intended but the consequences will be they will get a lot less next year. And I wonder how many people will have the same reaction. I think the Lego bubble is just about to burst.

And to end with a bold prediction, you will still be able to buy a Taj Mahal the day after its released unlike the MF.

CCC · October 2017

I think two of the big reasons people wanted the Taj Mahal were (1) the size, the biggest Lego set, and (2) the value. Both those have gone. Now it is a somewhat repetitive large set that is a bit difficult to display. I also wonder about demand. I doubt it is as big as it might seem.

Venunder · October 2017

Is this True?
Re-release?
https://brickset.com/sets/10256-1/Taj-Mahal

Woo Hoo!!!

Istokg · October 2017

How about the Statue of Liberty released in its' original copper (here copper chrome) color of 1886?

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5015319/uploads/editor/jh/1xflcar973ry.jpg

steveomcl · October 2017

I've my money sitting ready for a SSD re release

PapaBear · October 2017

Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty are in dire need of a new look. Those blocky designs are extremely outdated.

monkeyhanger · October 2017

steveomcl said:

I've my money sitting ready for a SSD re release

SSD hasn't been gone long, i'd bet on a regular ISD being redone first, and i''d expect it to be quite a redo, considering the original has plenty of those magnet parts to hold it together, which almost certainly won't make it into the redo.

Will the Taj redo (looking completely unaltered) really appeal like the MF? How many people only wanted it because of its aftermarket value which will now be shot?

Lego are dicing with the one thing that makes their higher end product seem reasonable value at RRP - resale value. A £650 MF seems reasonable to buy on the assumption that if you get sick of the room it is taking up a few years after retirement, you could get most of your money back (if not all and then some), used and complete. Lets also not forget that in the main, the new MF is a big improvement on the old one.

The "new" Taj looks pretty much a verbatim copy - lazy.

thehornedrat · October 2017

As for the Taj Mahal 10256 Re-release, I love how the extra piece is most likely the brick separator!

Awesome, Papabear for the prediction, holy smokes!

I love how we are anticipating a CC rerelease as well.

Overall trend is set! TY LEPIN!

thehornedrat · October 2017

Unfortunately, while looking around Brickset, the editing timed out.

Is there a thread dedicated for notifying Brickset about tagging rereleases? I think the 10240 Red Five and the 75144 Snowspeeder should also get this tag.

I won't argue about System format sets whose content always get a new reiteration every couple of years. That's a discussion/debate for another thread and may require a separate 'Rerelease' tag, don't want to derail this one. Although it would be nice to see the various Police HQs/Fire Stations/SW AT-ATs released over the years, for example. With proper tagging I suppose this is redundant, its just another way.

Pumpkin_3CK5 · November 2017

@Bumblepants The Haunted mansion is pretty recent so maybe they can release a new one now - which will probably sell like hotcakes - and upon seeing its success, re-release the first one.

alaskaguy · November 2017

CaptainLego said:

What modulars? What Emerald Night? Everybody knows that Lego is just itching to re-release updated versions of the Galidor sets called Galidor Police. Come on, people. Geez.

Maybe they could release some Railroad Police sets (:

Astrobricks said:

Really? No chance that maybe I'd like to get one for a "reasonable" price and don't want to give money to clone makers?

No chance that there are PLENTY of people who have no "Lego loyalty" - and see the bricks as little more than plastic parts, and if they can get seemingly identical ones for half the price, they'll happily buy them?

SumoLego · November 2017

CCC said:

I think two of the big reasons people wanted the Taj Mahal were (1) the size, the biggest Lego set, and (2) the value. Both those have gone. Now it is a somewhat repetitive large set that is a bit difficult to display. I also wonder about demand. I doubt it is as big as it might seem.

Yet the the Tower Bridge plods along... another year...

curious · November 2017

SMC said:

I think people are missing the point that the idea that Lego sets hold and even increases in value helps Lego enormously.

Even before the concept of AFOL's and Adults sets this was the case. When I was a kid Lego cost more than cheaper toys but my mum would say "Lego lasts you can pass in down once your done with it.

How does Lego get people to pay £650 for a Lego set, by have perceived value. If you have it in your head that a UCS MF cost thousands then hundreds seems like a good deal.

Lego also does well from collecting, the I need to have them all mindset. I think by making lines too large and having too many large sets Lego are oversaturating the market. If a line has 6 sets you might try and buy them all but if you feel its impossible to buy them all you might only get a couple and Lego loss sales by having too much choice. Also if a 3000 piece set is normal then you don't get excited about it.

How many of us buy a set because we might want it one day and we don't want to miss out because the after market price becomes too high. If aftermarket prices become too reasonable and if the best sets get remade ever few years then I can just wait.

Lego do profit from the after market and that's before you even consider people buying Lego just to resell. I think Lego are really harming the long term AFOL market.

I don't own the Taj Mahal and I am not a reseller so I don't have a vested interest. But I am a collector and a completest and after this year I will be changing the way I buy Lego because I can no longer complete a lot of my collection and Lego have harmed the collecting side with rereleases.

Lego got a lot more of my money this year then I intended but the consequences will be they will get a lot less next year. And I wonder how many people will have the same reaction. I think the Lego bubble is just about to burst.

And to end with a bold prediction, you will still be able to buy a Taj Mahal the day after its released unlike the MF.

Inflated aftermarket prices are no advantage to LEGO whatsoever. Most people buying are on a budget of some level, aftermarket sellers are directly competing with LEGO for that limited budget. An aftermarket sale represents at least one and on average probably several missed sales for LEGO. LEGO can't simply raise prices endlessly because Lepin etc are carving out their sales at the cheaper end of the market which is still a more important area of the market to them than collectors or AFOLs. They are getting more aggressive with re-releases because they feel under threat now from the combination. They can't cater to people who want higher prices and rarer sets because they are a mass market company with large production volumes with extensive infrastructure to support that. I expect them to get increasingly aggressive with re-releases until the aftermarket tumbles and they claw back some sales from Lepin.

alaskaguy · November 2017

curious said:

SMC said:
An aftermarket sale represents at least one and on average probably several missed sales for LEGO. LEGO can't simply raise prices endlessly because Lepin etc are carving out their sales at the cheaper end of the market which is still a more important area of the market to them than collectors or AFOLs. They are getting more aggressive with re-releases because they feel under threat now from the combination.

I agree. I have bought exactly two "out of print" sets. The Mars Curiosity Rover (for which I paid dearly) and the Technic MKII Crane (only a small premium on that one). It is very unlikely I would pay much more than MSRP for anything other than vintage Space sets in great condition. I'd certainly never pay thousands for a TM set. But I'll gladly pay Lego's $379 or whatever next month.

I've also CONSIDERED Lepin. It is very tempting. Probably the only thing that stops me is that I don't care to reward that kind of behaviour....it's not because I want to "support Lego". IMHO, Lego "sold out" when they started putting so much emphasis on the various mass-media-based sets. In some ways, I don't like Lego any more than I like Lepin.

Istokg · November 2017

Just an off-topic reminder again, since so many here aren't doing so.... The LEGO Group wishes all AFOLs to follow their guidelines for using their LEGO® trademarked name..... always type LEGO only as capital letters, and LEGO is both singular and plural (no LEGOS or Legos... only LEGO). They have many times asked all AFOLs to do this to help protect their trademarks. Thank You.

I won't get into further details about its' use, since we are all guilty of sometimes not getting that right! ;-)

Hanzo · November 2017

Istokg said:

Just an off-topic reminder again, since so many here aren't doing so.... The LEGO Group wishes all AFOLs to follow their guidelines for using their LEGO® trademarked name..... always type LEGO only as capital letters, and LEGO is both singular and plural (no LEGOS or Legos... only LEGO). They have many times asked all AFOLs to do this to help protect their trademarks. Thank You.

I won't get into further details about its' use, since we are all guilty of sometimes not getting that right! ;-)

I am not sure if you're being serious or not, but why would I (or really anyone not employed/partnered with TLG) possibly care what Lego wants them to do?

Istokg · November 2017

The majority of the posters on this forum apparently do. Me personally, as a LEGO author, seeing their logo as a plural form... is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

PapaBear · November 2017

Uh-oh @SumoLego, you are going to have to change your name now. Sorry bud

Glacierfalls265 · November 2017

And you can hear the panicked screams of the resellers as they lost thousands overnight...

CCC · November 2017

SumoLego said:

CCC said:

I think two of the big reasons people wanted the Taj Mahal were (1) the size, the biggest Lego set, and (2) the value. Both those have gone. Now it is a somewhat repetitive large set that is a bit difficult to display. I also wonder about demand. I doubt it is as big as it might seem.

Yet the the Tower Bridge plods along... another year...

Tower Bridge doesn't plod along. It is a stationary, unmovable object. Just like the real thing. :-)

playwell · November 2017

^ Every now and then sales go up then back down.

CCC · November 2017

alaskaguy said:

curious said:

SMC said:
An aftermarket sale represents at least one and on average probably several missed sales for LEGO. LEGO can't simply raise prices endlessly because Lepin etc are carving out their sales at the cheaper end of the market which is still a more important area of the market to them than collectors or AFOLs. They are getting more aggressive with re-releases because they feel under threat now from the combination.

I agree. I have bought exactly two "out of print" sets. The Mars Curiosity Rover (for which I paid dearly) and the Technic MKII Crane (only a small premium on that one).

So what option would you have preferred? Not being able to buy the Mars Curiosity Rover, or being able to buy it but only at an inflated price on the secondary market. As those are the two choices usually offered when it comes to LEGO.

LEGO produced a certain number of them, they sold them and they retired the set. You didn't buy it when LEGO sold it so you didn't use the primary market. If a reseller hadn't bought the one you later bought from him, you would not have been able to get your hands on a set - LEGO made a certain number and they were all sold. You might argue that the reseller depleted LEGO's stock by buying one for resale, and that it would have been available for a "real lego fan" to buy so it would have been in stock longer. I don't believe that, as it would have sold to another person at the time, and probably been opened and build removing it from the available secondary market stock. You may hate the secondary market and resellers, but in this case you were only able to get hold of a set you wanted because of a reseller. They provide a service to future buyers, which buyers decide to take advantage of, even if at a higher financial cost to the buyer - obviously it is not done altruistically.

CCC · November 2017

curious said:

SMC said:

I think people are missing the point that the idea that Lego sets hold and even increases in value helps Lego enormously.

Even before the concept of AFOL's and Adults sets this was the case. When I was a kid Lego cost more than cheaper toys but my mum would say "Lego lasts you can pass in down once your done with it.

How does Lego get people to pay £650 for a Lego set, by have perceived value. If you have it in your head that a UCS MF cost thousands then hundreds seems like a good deal.

Lego also does well from collecting, the I need to have them all mindset. I think by making lines too large and having too many large sets Lego are oversaturating the market. If a line has 6 sets you might try and buy them all but if you feel its impossible to buy them all you might only get a couple and Lego loss sales by having too much choice. Also if a 3000 piece set is normal then you don't get excited about it.

How many of us buy a set because we might want it one day and we don't want to miss out because the after market price becomes too high. If aftermarket prices become too reasonable and if the best sets get remade ever few years then I can just wait.

Lego do profit from the after market and that's before you even consider people buying Lego just to resell. I think Lego are really harming the long term AFOL market.

I don't own the Taj Mahal and I am not a reseller so I don't have a vested interest. But I am a collector and a completest and after this year I will be changing the way I buy Lego because I can no longer complete a lot of my collection and Lego have harmed the collecting side with rereleases.

Lego got a lot more of my money this year then I intended but the consequences will be they will get a lot less next year. And I wonder how many people will have the same reaction. I think the Lego bubble is just about to burst.

And to end with a bold prediction, you will still be able to buy a Taj Mahal the day after its released unlike the MF.

Inflated aftermarket prices are no advantage to LEGO whatsoever. Most people buying are on a budget of some level, aftermarket sellers are directly competing with LEGO for that limited budget. An aftermarket sale represents at least one and on average probably several missed sales for LEGO.

Any sensible buyer on a limited budget should buy the current, in-production sets that they are interested in direct from LEGO (or a supermarket). If you have limited funds and cannot buy both all the current sets you want and the retired sets that you want, then clearly priority should go to getting the current sets before they retire. Most in-demand sets have a jump after retirement, followed by a slow increase. So better to pay RRP when sets are current, and either leave retired sets for the future or just forget about them altogether.

Bumblepants · November 2017

Speaking of Tower Bridge, I find its continued existence alongside that of the VW T1 and the Death Star to be far more destructive to the reselling game than the Taj reappearing. Surprising as that was, the signs pointing to no safe bets remaining have been around several years.

CCC · November 2017

I guess the problem with the Tower Bridge is that we do not know if it is not selling or if they keep making more. It may be that they have decided to not discount it and just let stock dwindle naturally. It costs next to nothing to advertise it (they don't!) and so the main costs are probably due to the warehouse space. If someone orders, they ship from stock. It doesn't really affect the sales of other sets by taking away focus from them - whereas some of the other sets where they discount or do the "retiring soon" tag will affect sales of other sets. Presumably there are no licensing issues either, where they have to shift stock by a certain date.

CaptainPirateMan · November 2017

BlueberryWaffles said:

No real interest in the Taj Mahal, but I would totally be down for the Statue of Liberty if that was next in line. Would make a nice Ghostbusters 2 display.

Agreed.

alaskaguy · November 2017

So what option would you have preferred? Not being able to buy the Mars Curiosity Rover, or being able to buy it but only at an inflated price on the secondary market. As those are the two choices usually offered when it comes to LEGO.

I'd prefer Lego to offer a "make to order" option, and for them to develop the capability to economically do so. You know, the whole concept of "lean" and "just in time" manufacturing? Maybe not reasonable for Lego pre-internet, but with virtually every one of their customers having a "Lego ordering system" sitting in their house, or even in their pocket, it seems like there is every incentive in the world for Lego (and others) to leverage it to the greatest extent possible.

LEGO produced a certain number of them, they sold them and they retired the set. You didn't buy it when LEGO sold it so you didn't use the primary market. If a reseller hadn't bought the one you later bought from him, you would not have been able to get your hands on a set - LEGO made a certain number and they were all sold.

Then I would simply do without. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

alaskaguy · November 2017

Bumblepants said:

Speaking of Tower Bridge, I find its continued existence alongside that of the VW T1 and the Death Star to be far more destructive to the reselling game than the Taj reappearing.

I was going to ask "why is that" - but I re-read what you posted when I quoted - and follow your statement better. Yes, why buy after-market when you can buy from Lego? Certainly makes sense to me.

Tower Bridge is one I definitely want - but I am in no hurry to get it. I'm hoping for a sale. But if I see it flip to "last chance" or "retiring soon", then I will probably buy it that same day.

playwell · November 2017

CCC said:

I guess the problem with the Tower Bridge is that we do not know if it is not selling or if they keep making more. It may be that they have decided to not discount it and just let stock dwindle naturally. It costs next to nothing to advertise it (they don't!) and so the main costs are probably due to the warehouse space. If someone orders, they ship from stock. It doesn't really affect the sales of other sets by taking away focus from them - whereas some of the other sets where they discount or do the "retiring soon" tag will affect sales of other sets. Presumably there are no licensing issues either, where they have to shift stock by a certain date.

I am guessing it was selling ok as it got an updated box so I don't think they are just selling off old stock.

It will be interesting to see how long all these big sets hand around, if we get anywhere near the number of large sets next year some will surly have to go.

PeteM · November 2017

alaskaguy said:

So what option would you have preferred? Not being able to buy the Mars Curiosity Rover, or being able to buy it but only at an inflated price on the secondary market. As those are the two choices usually offered when it comes to LEGO.
I'd prefer Lego to offer a "make to order" option, and for them to develop the capability to economically do so. You know, the whole concept of "lean" and "just in time" manufacturing? Maybe not reasonable for Lego pre-internet, but with virtually every one of their customers having a "Lego ordering system" sitting in their house, or even in their pocket, it seems like there is every incentive in the world for Lego (and others) to leverage it to the greatest extent possible.

I can't imagine Lego haven't considered this - they sort of dabbled in it with Factory(?) but I do wonder if they may revisit it now technology has moved forward. I suppose the issue will be around capacity - their current setup will have efficiencies based around planning of production runs, so might require quite a change of mindset (and associated technology).

CCC · November 2017

SMC said:

CCC said:

I guess the problem with the Tower Bridge is that we do not know if it is not selling or if they keep making more. It may be that they have decided to not discount it and just let stock dwindle naturally. It costs next to nothing to advertise it (they don't!) and so the main costs are probably due to the warehouse space. If someone orders, they ship from stock. It doesn't really affect the sales of other sets by taking away focus from them - whereas some of the other sets where they discount or do the "retiring soon" tag will affect sales of other sets. Presumably there are no licensing issues either, where they have to shift stock by a certain date.

I am guessing it was selling ok as it got an updated box so I don't think they are just selling off old stock.

It will be interesting to see how long all these big sets hand around, if we get anywhere near the number of large sets next year some will surly have to go.

The box update was a while ago, wasn't it? Everything about that set clouds the mind, it has been around for so long!

CCC · November 2017

alaskaguy said:

So what option would you have preferred? Not being able to buy the Mars Curiosity Rover, or being able to buy it but only at an inflated price on the secondary market. As those are the two choices usually offered when it comes to LEGO.
I'd prefer Lego to offer a "make to order" option, and for them to develop the capability to economically do so. You know, the whole concept of "lean" and "just in time" manufacturing? Maybe not reasonable for Lego pre-internet, but with virtually every one of their customers having a "Lego ordering system" sitting in their house, or even in their pocket, it seems like there is every incentive in the world for Lego (and others) to leverage it to the greatest extent possible.

LEGO did it in the past (http://designbyme.lego.com). It failed (although they say it was a success but closed it anyway).

They make money from volume sales not customised parts orders. Having to have either a human or a robot pick one part from here and one part from here is obviously not cost effective at what would be considered normal set prices. They seem to be at capacity for fulfilling sets. There is no capacity for just in time manufacturing as this would divert capacity from their major sales. I also imagine they can fulfill many more of their own high volume sets than they can individuals' custom sets and hence have no reason to divert away from their core sales.

There is also the existing online pick a brick and bricks and pieces services, which provide a similar service just not as user friendly. The prices in these show how expensive it is to get single parts picked and packed. Try pricing up a set through BnP and you'll realise how expensive it can be.

Plus, of course, there will be loads of complaints that people cannot buy the specific parts that they want to assemble their own (insert license here) set.

CCC · November 2017

alaskaguy said:
LEGO produced a certain number of them, they sold them and they retired the set. You didn't buy it when LEGO sold it so you didn't use the primary market. If a reseller hadn't bought the one you later bought from him, you would not have been able to get your hands on a set - LEGO made a certain number and they were all sold.
Then I would simply do without. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

You have the possibility of doing without whether resellers exist or not.

If there are not resellers, you only have the option of doing without.

If there are resellers, you have the option of buying from the secondary market or doing without.

If it is not the end of the world if you cannot buy X at all, then clearly it is no worse if you can buy X, even if you have to pay a higher price than the original RRP.

alaskaguy · November 2017

PeteM said:

I suppose the issue will be around capacity - their current setup will have efficiencies based around planning of production runs, so might require quite a change of mindset (and associated technology).

I think it's mostly a mindset issue. Mindset is very hard to change - but changed mindset is more often than not the responsible event for great leaps forward.

As for production runs...they're already making bricks. Leaving out the potential need for brand new piece designs for brand new sets for a minute....you can use big data (data science) to predict and forecast required inventory levels for every piece based on historical order/sales levels, and produce pieces when levels get too low - with enough "safety margin" to allow you to do brick production runs of sufficient quantity to be economical (while simultaneously doing everything you can to lower the # of bricks required to make a run economical). So your primary "runs" are producing bricks for your brick warehouse.

Your secondary runs are converting brick stores into ordered sets. You can apply the same techniques to that, to either produce small runs of sets on speculation (the data tell you they will sell) AND/OR to indicate to customers who order a particular set, when that set will be shipped (which may be a bit out) - so that you can collect enough orders for a set to then do that secondary run (turning brick stores into brick sets) in the most economical fashion possible. Combine all THAT with a "no boxes for made-to-order sets" policy AND a "download your instructions from our site using your special key code delivered with your set" policy to reduce costs AND Amazon-warehouse style robotics - and you have a chance to make a go of it. I think there is at least the POTENTIAL to use this approach to lower costs. If Lego can lower its costs, it can lower its prices without sacrificing margin, and help it defend against the likes of Lepin.

But that approach requires a real change of mindset, and enough vision and belief to make the investment required. But similar things have been done. For example, Apple's investment in supply chain vision doesn't get the credit that it should, but it absolutely was a major factor in the turn-around of the company. That's what Tim Cook was brought in to do - and he was Jobs' hand-picked successor for CEO as a result of the success he achieved in supply chain leadership.

What is the next set to be remade?

Comments

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories