10179 - UCS: Millennium Falcon

[Phil B]

7 minutes ago, gregpj said:

Then what's the harm in saying it was bricklinked? If you bricklinked a set, what reason would you have for not mentioning it was bricklinked?

The reality is that people aren't bricklinking the balloon cart poly (no offense Poly :)) and putting it on eBay. They're bricklinking the big and expensive sets... and with that comes the risk of wrong parts, fake stickers, etc.

If you all truly believe its worth the same, then you should put BRICKLINKED in your title and see if it matters.

I was not trying to justify listing something that you knew was bricklinked as "original". I was trying to say that from a BUYER's perspective there is no difference: You buy something that says "original" or doesn't mention anything about its origin, and you won't have a surefire way to distinguish original from bricklinked. Of course, if the seller is honest and says "bricklinked" or "made with original parts from other sets" you know, but most of the time you don't.

[jaisonline]

honestly, i couldn't care less if my expensive used sets purchased were bricklinked or not.  all i care about is whether the manual, stickers (if applicable) and "correct" elements are included.    lego has made so many of each set. then mentally add another 5-10% on top of whatever that # is due to folks needing misplaced manuals. 

[gregpj]

6 minutes ago, jaisonline said:

honestly, i couldn't care less if my expensive sets purchased were bricklinked or not.  all i care about is whether the manual, stickers (if applicable) and "correct" elements are included.    lego has made so many of each set. then mentally add another 5-10% on top of whatever that # is due to folks needing misplaced manuals. 

Right there you exclude most bricklinked sets by virtue of wanting the instruction manual. Most people who BL and resell won't bother obtain the (usually) expensive manuals.

I personally don't care either, but given the choice between two sets for the exact same price - one that is listed used/complete and new/bricklinked - I go for the used/complete set because I'm just like that. But if there was any significant difference in price, I'd get the new/bl'ed one.

I also would have no fear of mentioning something I was selling was bricklinked for the exact reason BA mentioned. As long as any rare parts are included, then it ought to fetch the same price on any given day. When I've sold used sets, I don't mention that I had to order a few parts or borrow a few parts... but normally I've always sold with the manuals so it always "feels" more like a complete set.

[citymorgue]

Brinklinked or not, it still shouldn't effect the price of the set.  Granted without the sticker/manual/box, you aren't going to get as much, but you are still paying for the parts.  If it contains the original pieces for the set, you are still going to get a similar price because you will still pay close to the same amount bricklinking all the original parts anyways.

My MF may still be missing the sticker/manual/box/minifigs, but the set itself is still worth a lot because I have all the original expensive pieces and proper versions.  Of course with the expensive stuff, you can still sell it for at least what you paid for, only because most people won't bother/ have the time to bricklink a 5000 piece set.

Sure I know some of you are very particular about this, but in the end what you guys are more focused on is if all the rare/expensive pieces are there.  Are you really going to care if that 2x2 grey brick is from a newer mold then the original from back in 2009ish? I highly doubt that.

Here's another exercise for some of you guys.  Those that buy big lots, and get manuals/boxes for a particular set, and are missing a few pieces for a complete set, and you go to resell it, how do you do it?  Do you sell it as used complete?  Or do you say that everything is original except for a couple of either replaced/bricklinked parts?  Wouldn't you still expect to get a fair used price?  Or would you be willing to accept a possible low ball because it's not truly 100% original?

[stephen_rockefeller]

3 hours ago, lego rules said:

As a buyer.  I want to know if the set has been bricklinked or if it is an original.  To me, regardless if the pieces are the same, a bricklinked set doesn't hold the same value.

Well this is just silly.........

[lego rules]

2 minutes ago, stephen_rockefeller said:

Well this is just silly.........

I doubt I am alone on this;  if offered a choice between an original copy and brick linked copy; I believe many would not choose the brick linked copy.  Even if the price is the same, it makes the original set more valuable.

[citymorgue]

8 minutes ago, lego rules said:

I doubt I am alone on this;  if offered a choice between an original copy and brick linked copy; I believe many would not choose the brick linked copy.  Even if the price is the same, it makes the original set more valuable.

How so? If every piece is original, what's really the difference between the two?  How can you truly tell?

[lego rules]

1 minute ago, citymorgue said:

How so? If every piece is original, what's really the difference between the two?  How can you truly tell?

Lets assume I can't tell the difference.  All I am saying is two people list the 10179 for the same price except one is original and the other is brick linked, I would always choose the original.

[citymorgue]

33 minutes ago, lego rules said:

Lets assume I can't tell the difference.  All I am saying is two people list the 10179 for the same price except one is original and the other is brick linked, I would always choose the original.

Ok, in that same regards though, if you don't know which is which, and you have just 2 sitting in front of you, and both offered the same price, how could you choose between one that is bricklinked and one that is not.  And if you picked the bricklinked one, would you feel slighted and demand some money back because it's not original?

Again, I can understand someone's personal preference, but in the end, it's really not any different.  It's still the same set, with the same pieces, just from different sources.  (Not if you count that everything still at one point originated from the Lego factory anyways.)

It almost sounds as if you are saying the bricklinked MF has cooties because some other piece not from the original packaging touched the set.

Edited May 4, 2016 by citymorgue

[lego rules]

17 minutes ago, citymorgue said:

Ok, in that same regards though, if you don't know which is which, and you have just 2 sitting in front of you, and both offered the same price, how could you choose between one that is bricklinked and one that is not.  And if you picked the bricklinked one, would you feel slighted and demand some money back because it's not original?

Again, I can understand someone's personal preference, but in the end, it's really not any different.  It's still the same set, with the same pieces, just from different sources.  (Not if you count that everything still at one point originated from the Lego factory anyways.)

It almost sounds as if you are saying the bricklinked MF has cooties because some other piece not from the original packaging touched the set.

Maybe I am alone in wanting the original whenever possible.  I only hope when people are selling sets they are honest enough to disclose what they know about the set to the best of their ability.  I believe there is perceived value in having the original even if that perception is irrational.

 

 

 

[dcdfan]

[jaisonline]

 

3 hours ago, dcdfan said:

 

 

Exactly. If folks want a 100% guaranteed 10179, they can buy a new one.

 

I can't tell you how many used multiple set lots I purchased that were thrown in one box or needed some elements from bricklink to complete them.

People need to find something else to campaign for.

[waydog]

there was a great article in the latest departures magazine about the art world and fraud.  master forgers could replicate the drawing,  the paint color, shades, the brush stroke, age the painting, the frame, everything, so that even experts could be fooled.  here people were paying millions of dollars for a Rothko painting, and loved them.  some of the customers who bought the rothkos discussed crying when they looked at it.  it was so overpowering to them.  then it comes out that it was a fake, like many that this insured gallery was selling, and they felt deceived, ripped off, and now did not want the painting.   its literally the same painting that passed all sorts of hurdles of major inspection, 99.99999% of people could not tell the difference.  the painting is literally exactly the same, but wasn't painted by who they thought painted it.  my question is, are they silly too?  some might say yes, some might say no.  to each their own I guess. 

I looked at the rothkos and I thought it was just some stupid rectangles, but what the heck do I know, I like the ucs assault on hoth set and don't want to buy a bricklinked set:)  i'd order and bricklink a set myself, but I don't think I could trust a stranger to do it properly for me. 

[jstodda]

I like to display my items so if something has been brick linked (which I have bought before) there are clues to find out if it is an original or not.  I personally don't care enough but I know some collectors do.

The easiest way to tell if a set has been brick linked is to look for different shades of color.  Pieces from different batches when they are made can have slightly different shades.  It is not full proof because original sets will also have this issue.

The other method which I have heard of but have never looked into it, is identification by mold number / date stamps.  A typical set will have most identical pieces of the same color produced by the same mold and similar time.

This to me is the kicker. The issue is if all the pieces are 100% uniform or not. BL sets are rarely uniform, it's not impossible but improbable unless you buy "new" on BL. Even then, check the thread about yellowing white pieces and how to maintain color. I think the consensus is that color on plastic has a shelf life, even of two bricks are the same TODAY, one might last 3 years while the other lasts 7.

A BL set probably won't look the same today as it does 8 to 10 years from now.

[jstodda]

Lets assume I can't tell the difference.  All I am saying is two people list the 10179 for the same price except one is original and the other is brick linked, I would always choose the original.

The other piece is when you DO purchase on brick link. How many "new" items are 1. From ANOTHER BL order, 2. From sets that have been parted out, 3. From a Lego pick and pay bin... How do we even know that NEW means original owner!? The point is you can't. New means not built/used but it might not mean new in age. How many pieces sit in a bit for a while before finally getting purchased and again how do we know their place of origin!? It's like Lego inception (a piece from a set purchased to be sold and then resold and then resold to be used in other set).

A BL Lego labeled NEW should be considered equal with a Lego from a set as long as that set was sealed, as the criteria for "new" is the same for both.

[Mos_Eisley]

1 hour ago, waydog said:

there was a great article in the latest departures magazine about the art world and fraud.  master forgers could replicate the drawing,  the paint color, shades, the brush stroke, age the painting, the frame, everything, so that even experts could be fooled.  here people were paying millions of dollars for a Rothko painting, and loved them.  some of the customers who bought the rothkos discussed crying when they looked at it.  it was so overpowering to them.  then it comes out that it was a fake, like many that this insured gallery was selling, and they felt deceived, ripped off, and now did not want the painting.   its literally the same painting that passed all sorts of hurdles of major inspection, 99.99999% of people could not tell the difference.  the painting is literally exactly the same, but wasn't painted by who they thought painted it.  my question is, are they silly too?  some might say yes, some might say no.  to each their own I guess. 

I looked at the rothkos and I thought it was just some stupid rectangles, but what the heck do I know, I like the ucs assault on hoth set and don't want to buy a bricklinked set:)  i'd order and bricklink a set myself, but I don't think I could trust a stranger to do it properly for me. 

This is not the same.

[waydog]

45 minutes ago, Mos_Eisley said:

This is not the same.

physically, I agree with you.  I was speaking more on the emotional side of things.  trying to convince a person that is not a fan of bricklinking (and when I say bricklinking, I only mean the top dogs, falcon, carousel, café corner, etc) but trying to convince them with just physical points misses the entire picture.  diverting to substitutions, or bulk lots also misses the point.  most who are not fans of bricklinking just "feel" its not the same.  yes, we know that technically, if its the exact same pieces, its the same, but just like the woman who cried over the painting, and then hated it when she found it to be a fraud, there is an emotional element to collectibles of any sort, whether, art, jewelry, guns, lego, cars.  people are not paying $5000 for a lego set or a $100 million for a painting just for the physical aspects. 

let me put it this way, is there a single, original lego set that you bought and own, that holds a special meaning to you?  would you sell it right now for triple the value and then just replace it with a bricklinked set?  maybe you would, maybe you would not.  I have a particular lego set that I refuse to sell, it means a heck of a lot to me.  is that logical?  no.  is it silly, sure, but trying to convince someone who sees an emotional connection to things with physical arguments will not be successful.   

I know, I know, cue the namecalling, substitution argument, bulk lot, and love of just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I do think there is a huge emotional connection that is sometimes overlooked.  back to lurking. 

[citymorgue]

Yes there may be an emotional aspect to it, but the painting is not same.  The only way that equivalency could work is if I peppered in fake Chinese knock off Lego pieces in the set.  Otherwise it's still genuine.  And of course, a single one of a kind painting doesn't compute with something that lego produces thousands/millions of on a daily basis.

Of course in my world, I would never sell any lego sets, but if I had to sell it, only to just bricklink it down the road, I wouldn't care because just having the set is good enough for me.  Sure I would to finish out the last things of my MF, but I don't have the over $1000 I need to complete everything.  I'm fine with just the MF because that's the crown jewel anyways.  But, I do understand your point.  I have emotional attachments to some of my stuff, but if it came to push and shove, I would have no regrets selling stuff.

I remember when I first got on my own, I spent a lot of time and money collecting the Power 9 for Magic the gathering.  I loved it, and thought I would never sell it.  I had a strong emotional connection to Magic, because that was my life in high school.  But, I realized after many years sitting in a closet collecting dust, I might as well just cash out.  And boy did it cash out very nicely.  No regrets for that action.

Edited May 5, 2016 by citymorgue

[waydog]

53 minutes ago, citymorgue said:

Yes there may be an emotional aspect to it, but the painting is not same.  The only way that equivalency could work is if I peppered in fake Chinese knock off Lego pieces in the set.  Otherwise it's still genuine.  And of course, a single one of a kind painting doesn't compute with something that lego produces thousands/millions of on a daily basis.

Of course in my world, I would never sell any lego sets, but if I had to sell it, only to just bricklink it down the road, I wouldn't care because just having the set is good enough for me.  Sure I would to finish out the last things of my MF, but I don't have the over $1000 I need to complete everything.  I'm fine with just the MF because that's the crown jewel anyways.  But, I do understand your point.  I have emotional attachments to some of my stuff, but if it came to push and shove, I would have no regrets selling stuff.

I remember when I first got on my own, I spent a lot of time and money collecting the Power 9 for Magic the gathering.  I loved it, and thought I would never sell it.  I had a strong emotional connection to Magic, because that was my life in high school.  But, I realized after many years sitting in a closet collecting dust, I might as well just cash out.  And boy did it cash out very nicely.  No regrets for that action.

that is the beauty of collecting.  the eccentricity of it all.  people will pay a lot more for a first edition book even though the 2nd and 3rd editions are literally the same thing, same publisher, same manufacturer, same cover, same paper, same story, same everything, but to a collector of first editions, there's a huge difference.

I was watching antique roadshow and this guy had an antique armoire that he put one coat of paint on to restore it to its original look and the expert told him that took $20,000 off the price of the antique.  it looks better and is same color, but to a collector, it is a huge no no.

I've personally seen 2 civil war swords, both authentic, but one sword sat in a supply warehouse while the other was supposedly owned by a famous general.  the price difference was astounding, and I could think of is, the price is different because a famous dead guy put his hands on this one and the other sat in a warehouse. its the same sword though.  

that lady that broke down crying because she felt so much from that painting, and then hated the painting the next day blew my mind, but i'm not judging her.  the painting is exactly the same as it was yesterday, but due to where it originated from, she went from tears of passion to disgust.   its the same painting from yesterday, the color, the strokes, the drawing literally did not change, but her whole disposition changed. 

bricklinking has a similar eccentricity.  collectors want what collectors want.  some want it from lego, from a 10179 box, some don't mind that it comes pieced together from bulk lots and the internet and built buy a guy in Florence, sc. 

everyone draws these lines in the sand when it comes to bricklinking, but the emotion of what a collector likes and wants is a powerful fuel that brings the profits to the secondary market.  I learned a long time ago in business to do one big thing, listen to the customer.  if they want a particular item a certain way, I listen and get them what they want, not what I think they logically should want.

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by waydog

[Ed Mack]

I think if many of you ever want the LEGO world of "collecting" to be considered in the same league as other big time collectibles, then originality has to matter.  

[thoroakenfelder]

34 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

I think if many of you ever want the LEGO world of "collecting" to be considered in the same league as other big time collectibles, then originality has to matter.  

The problem is provinence. Once a set is opened,you can never prove that the pieces came from that box. It's not like there's DNA, fingerprints, or some subtle alteration in the mass produced pieces to differentiate them. So that leaves only NIB LEGO sets that are (virtually) guaranteed to be 100% authentic. If someone could find some way to guarantee that every piece in the set came from the same original box, the test would probably cost more than the item.

Ok, so let's take the bricklinking argument and apply it to other collectible toys that have been removed from the package. G.I. Joe collectors aren't turning their nose up at a loose complete stormshadow just because the seller might have accumulated his gear from other legitimate sources. If the gear is reproduction, that would lower the value. THe same applies for Every toyline in existence. If the stickers on the vehicles are reproduction,they are not worth as much as original. We see that with UCS sets. If the1978 Millennium Falcon is missing the training ball, it is worth less, but if an original piece (non-reproduction) is included, regardless of whether it originally came with this set or another produced in 1981, 1979, 1982, or 1983, no one really cares. You can't tell me that Star Wars collectors are less picky than LEGO collectors.

We should not stand for counterfeit/reproduction pieces being passed off as original or substitutions for wrong colored pieces being given a nod and a wink, but trying to figure out if a single cohesive whole came from the same box originally, if all pieces are correct, is obsessive on a scale unheard of. We're talking about 5000+ pieces of varying size. If someone like that had a book case with multiple sets that collapses and the sets smash together and intermingle, well, boy howdy, they had better know which exact piece went with which set,because the set would no longer be original. They might as well throw them in the parts bin and shop for a new one. Because I am sure it would eat away at them, knowing that those grey pieces on their 10030 might be from their 10179 (and vice versa) thus destroying the integrity of their entire collection.

Take your car, collector's piece or general purpose vehicle, would you consider it a fundamentally different car if you repaired it? From an article that I read about a  sink hole opening under the corvette museum, even their unique pieces (the 1,000,000th corvette produced as an example) that were destroyed were going to be restored. To the car afficionados at large, it sounded like as long as they did not make certain fundamental substitutions, it was the same car.

[asharerin]

17 hours ago, lego rules said:

Maybe I am alone in wanting the original whenever possible.  I only hope when people are selling sets they are honest enough to disclose what they know about the set to the best of their ability.  I believe there is perceived value in having the original even if that perception is irrational.

I agree. A bricklinked set is not the same as the original set. Colors vary, production stamps vary, plastic quality and position of notches/grooves/tabs all vary over the years.You can spot a bricklinked set a mile away. Anyone selling a bricklinked set should disclose that, especially for a $3k set IMO.

Now if you painstakingly bricklink the original pieces (with the original production stamps numbers all from the correct years) then by all means you have an original set. Just don't go trying to tell me a 10179 completed with pieces produced in 2015 is the real thing. It is like telling me a rebuilt 1965 Shelby 350 GT Mustang with an engine from another year is the real thing. 

[exciter1]

[citymorgue]

22 minutes ago, asharerin said:

I agree. A bricklinked set is not the same as the original set. Colors vary, production stamps vary, plastic quality and position of notches/grooves/tabs all vary over the years.You can spot a bricklinked set a mile away. Anyone selling a bricklinked set should disclose that, especially for a $3k set IMO.

Now if you painstakingly bricklink the original pieces (with the original production stamps numbers all from the correct years) then by all means you have an original set. Just don't go trying to tell me a 10179 completed with pieces produced in 2015 is the real thing. It is like telling me a rebuilt 1965 Shelby 350 GT Mustang with an engine from another year is the real thing. 

It's still not the same thing.  Fundamentally, a gray 2x2 brick is going to be the same from 2009 as in 2015.  That's the beauty of Lego.  Pieces from any year will still work with pieces from the newest set.  Sure there may be different mold productions, but it's still the same.  And besides, who honestly scrutinizes every piece to figure out exactly when a piece was made?  I'm pretty sure there are new sets in production that have pieces made a couple of years back.  They have warehouses full of just stocked up pieces that get thrown together to make sets.

You point about a rebuilt engine still isn't the same equivalent.  For it to be original, yes you would have to find one from that particular year.  But with something like that, they have specific models for a reason.  But if you took a 1965 engine from another Shelby 350 GT, then yes, technically it's still original.  But again, it's not the same thing as a lego set.

Imagine someone buying a pet shop from 2009, and opening it now and mixing the pieces up from a pet shop produced last year.  It's still original is it not???  Are you really going to go through every piece and figure out exactly when it's made????  These are all false equivalencies.  My goodness.

If you are talking about difference variants and colors, then yes, you have a valid point about it not being original.  Other than that, it's moot.

36 minutes ago, thoroakenfelder said:

The problem is provinence. Once a set is opened,you can never prove that the pieces came from that box. It's not like there's DNA, fingerprints, or some subtle alteration in the mass produced pieces to differentiate them. So that leaves only NIB LEGO sets that are (virtually) guaranteed to be 100% authentic. If someone could find some way to guarantee that every piece in the set came from the same original box, the test would probably cost more than the item.

Ok, so let's take the bricklinking argument and apply it to other collectible toys that have been removed from the package. G.I. Joe collectors aren't turning their nose up at a loose complete stormshadow just because the seller might have accumulated his gear from other legitimate sources. If the gear is reproduction, that would lower the value. THe same applies for Every toyline in existence. If the stickers on the vehicles are reproduction,they are not worth as much as original. We see that with UCS sets. If the1978 Millennium Falcon is missing the training ball, it is worth less, but if an original piece (non-reproduction) is included, regardless of whether it originally came with this set or another produced in 1981, 1979, 1982, or 1983, no one really cares. You can't tell me that Star Wars collectors are less picky than LEGO collectors.

We should not stand for counterfeit/reproduction pieces being passed off as original or substitutions for wrong colored pieces being given a nod and a wink, but trying to figure out if a single cohesive whole came from the same box originally, if all pieces are correct, is obsessive on a scale unheard of. We're talking about 5000+ pieces of varying size. If someone like that had a book case with multiple sets that collapses and the sets smash together and intermingle, well, boy howdy, they had better know which exact piece went with which set,because the set would no longer be original. They might as well throw them in the parts bin and shop for a new one. Because I am sure it would eat away at them, knowing that those grey pieces on their 10030 might be from their 10179 (and vice versa) thus destroying the integrity of their entire collection.

^^^All of this

Bolded section:  I remember before we moved to our new house, I had my Tower Bridge on a wall shelf in my bedroom.  One day, my cat thought it would be smart to jump up there and in the process knock it off.  Well, eventually I put the set back together, and found that one of the gold pieces from the spires was broken.  I ordered a replacement from Lego and put it on.  By @asharerin standards, my Tower bridge is no longer original and I should label it as such.  I should make note that one spire piece is newer because it's not the one from the original packaging, and therefore worth less.  It's the same concept, but with the MF on a much larger scale. 

[Ed Mack]

As with the car restoration business, there are a certain amount of components that can be replaced or redone and still be considered original.  I believe LEGO sets can be looked at in a similar way.  To prove a set is 100% original after it has been opened and built is impossible, but if the vast majority of pieces are original and the instructions and stickers are available, to me, the set is worth more than a pieced out set.