Biggest Losers - Class of 2014

[jaisonline]

Something I'm unsure about is, is the fairground mixer actually the first in this theme park line? Or is the grand carousel considered to be? Either way the F. Mixer will do well in the future imo. Maybe not make huge returns but an early set in a new theme tends to trend as a positive.

Edit: stupid grammar

I also have a feeling the Fairgrounds Mixer will do well after retirement. Just need to get my hands on one to build with PF before investing in them. With sets like these, I always like to build them before buying. If I like it, that's my way of telling me AFOLs will also down the road.

[speedsausage]

I also have a feeling the Fairgrounds Mixer will do well after retirement. Just need to get my hands on one to build with PF before investing in them. With sets like these, I always like to build them before buying. If I like it, that's my way of telling me AFOLs will also down the road.

What's "PF"? I don't believe I've seen that one before

[TheOrcKing]

I also have a feeling the Fairgrounds Mixer will do well after retirement. Just need to get my hands on one to build with PF before investing in them.

What's "PF"? I don't believe I've seen that one before

Power Functions I believe.

[dcdfan]

What's "PF"? I don't believe I've seen that one before

Power Functions.

[Vinetu]

I'm very new on this forum, although a long time collector (the guy who usually buys stuff he was late for because of the Dark Age from you guys ), and I'll give you my perspective on these (remember, more gut feeling, less hard data, I'm very much a novice in investing):

 

1. See Cow - I never understood anything Lego movie related. I'm a 30+ adult without kids, therefore even as a Lego unconditional, of course I didn't watch it or have been remotely attracted to watch kids' movie. Same goes for sets, nothing really legendary (and no, it won't become next SW or LoTR) for an adult collector who is supposed to shell out 2x or more RRP on this set. Completists? Sure. Others? Selected few enthusiasts who got the set recommended on its supposedly great build, but for that one does not shell out 2x RRP imho. You need to WANT and LOVE and FEEL the set to get your willingness to pay to 400

Edited April 3, 2015 by Vinetu

[fossilrock]

I think the opinion was based on an investment point of view and not that of buying the set as a build - in this case all of the originally mooted sets have their good points.

 

 

I find it hard to take the opinion of investors that haven't actually built what they are discussing.   If a person has built it, and then had a negative opinion, that is one thing, but to take investment advice from someone that hasn't sat and actually put together a set that has over 3000 pieces, and takes many hours to build makes me skeptical of that "sound advice".  UCS sets are much different than some small to mid-range set.  I'm building the Sandcrawler as we speak, and it's quite an amazing set. 

[bricketycricket]

I find it hard to take the opinion of investors that haven't actually built what they are discussing.   If a person has built it, and then had a negative opinion, that is one thing, but to take investment advice from someone that hasn't sat and actually put together a set that has over 3000 pieces, and takes many hours to build makes me skeptical of that "sound advice".  UCS sets are much different than some small to mid-range set.  I'm building the Sandcrawler as we speak, and it's quite an amazing set. 

I agree that you can gain some insight from actually building and seeing a set in person. That being said, someone paying top dollar for it down the line presumably has not and is judging based on box pics, internet photos, etc. -- the same stuff that a primary market buyer has access to. So it's not the be all end all either.

[fossilrock]

I agree that you can gain some insight from actually building and seeing a set in person. That being said, someone paying top dollar for it down the line presumably has not and is judging based on box pics, internet photos, etc. -- the same stuff that a primary market buyer has access to. So it's not the be all end all either.

But hopefully those people are smart enough to read or watch reviews by people that have actually built it.  I wouldn't go blindly into spending 700 on a set without watching quite a few reviews from people that have built it and discuss it. 

[bricketycricket]

But hopefully those people are smart enough to read or watch reviews by people that have actually built it.  I wouldn't go blindly into spending 700 on a set without watching quite a few reviews from people that have built it and discuss it. 

Maybe some do, maybe some don't. I'm sure many are buying simply because they have an attachment to whatever the finished model is, whether it's a Millenium Falcon or a Batmobile. Again, I agree that building a set can help one evaluate it but I don't think it's 100% necessary to do so in order to determine the worth of a set as an investment.

[tonysbricks]

But hopefully those people are smart enough to read or watch reviews by people that have actually built it.  I wouldn't go blindly into spending 700 on a set without watching quite a few reviews from people that have built it and discuss it. 

 

Why do you assume investors who do not build do not do the same thing?

[redcell]

I find it hard to take the opinion of investors that haven't actually built what they are discussing.   If a person has built it, and then had a negative opinion, that is one thing, but to take investment advice from someone that hasn't sat and actually put together a set that has over 3000 pieces, and takes many hours to build makes me skeptical of that "sound advice".  UCS sets are much different than some small to mid-range set.  I'm building the Sandcrawler as we speak, and it's quite an amazing set. 

 

I tend to think that a lot of people here really overthink when it comes to trying to predict why a given set will be popular.  For example, why would anyone assume that the "build" of a set would have any impact on its value?  People who are willing to pay a premium for a given set on the secondary market are -- with few exceptions -- extremely unlikely to have ever built the set that they are paying a premium for.

[fossilrock]

I tend to think that a lot of people here really overthink when it comes to trying to predict why a given set will be popular.  For example, why would anyone assume that the "build" of a set would have any impact on its value?  People who are willing to pay a premium for a given set on the secondary market are -- with few exceptions -- extremely unlikely to have ever built the set that they are paying a premium for.

There's a bit of a difference between those that like a set and buy it to build, and those that just buy it to invest in it and then sell it down the line.  One is simply a seller, the other is an end user (with potential to be a reseller).  I think it's pretty solid bet that most UCS star wars sets are going to do well over the long haul.  But, as someone that builds, as well as invests, I tend to think that the build is a big part in what I would buy for my collection.   I know i'm not the only one that thinks that way either.  If the set has a lackluster reputation, or has lackluster reviews from people that have built it, and I respect that reviewers opinion, then i'll tend to gather that information for my own use on if I should purchase something or not.

 

Why do you assume investors who do not build do not do the same thing?

I'm sure many do.  But, if they are going to chime in on opinions about how awesome/bad a set is, especially when they haven't built,  then as a "prospective buyer" I would take their advice with a grain of salt.  I"m not strictly an investor, and collecting is part of my game strategy too.  So, building plays a role, if you ask me.  And seriously, if there were no builders, there would be no investors.

 

[stephen_rockefeller]

I tend to think that a lot of people here really overthink when it comes to trying to predict why a given set will be popular. For example, why would anyone assume that the "build" of a set would have any impact on its value? People who are willing to pay a premium for a given set on the secondary market are -- with few exceptions -- extremely unlikely to have ever built the set that they are paying a premium for.

Over analysis is the name of the game here, you didn't get that memo?

[trekgate502]

No losers for me and I became a fan of Chima!

[MathBuilder]

No losers for me and I became a fan of Chima!

 

That trek, is because you are the single most optimistic person I have met on BP. Keep being that way. 

 

For the rest of us, who sometimes can't see the bright side of things, I'll say if you are stuck with a bunch of sets that are losers or you think are losers, better try to get rid of them quick even at 0 profit and put your money to work in something else. 

[biniou]

About the sandcrawler, just take a look here: http://brickset.com/sets/75059-1/Sandcrawler

 

Collections

    2040 people own this set
    3624 want this set

 

(2040/3624)

 

When EOL it could end to 2700/3800 (because there are about 6500 votes for the R5)

 

This is a very good ratio for a 2014 set. Far better than the Simpsons House for example (4266/2591). Better than the R5 (3473/3048) which is one year older.

 

So call it the "Number 3 among the 2014 biggest losers" is a bit early.

 

I don't say it'll be winner, and I understand why on June 2014 it could have looked so, but now let's face the figures. It will hardly be a loser.

[tonysbricks]

Assuming people still care about lego when it retires, sandcrawler will do just fine.

 

This was before I built it. Now that I have, in my opinion it's an absolute winner and an amazing display piece. One of the my fav builds to date. But since potential buyers have not built, we can only hope they have read the builder's reviews and drop the paper accordingly.

[Frank Brickowski]

But hopefully those people are smart enough to read or watch reviews by people that have actually built it.  I wouldn't go blindly into spending 700 on a set without watching quite a few reviews from people that have built it and discuss it. 

 

Speaking from experience, many, many people who buy something (whatever it is), have either not informed themselves (enough) about the product or have not really made up their minds about it the moment they order it. Those - and it is the majority, I would say - are the ones that thing called "returns" was invented for. Most of the people DO in fact go blindly spending their money. On Ebay they don't even read the few lines describing the prodcut - speaking from experience. So most of the buyers of anything are not really "educated" about their buy.

 

Aside from that being said, "building" a set is about 2-4 hours, whereas "looking at it" is for the rest of the time, namely YEARS. Hence when buying a set 99% will decide after what the finished model looks like and not after the building experience. That is why I do not at all consider building experience a relevant factor when deciding about investing in a set or not.

[Ed Mack]

I don't have any set method of picking sets. Sometimes I see them and know I have to have it. Sometimes I watch a video and say, "Hey, that's pretty cool!" and buy it. Sometimes I read a comment or review and think the set is interesting.

What I do know is that there is not one LEGO set that I have ever built that I don't appreciate in some way. Maybe it's a minifigure or brick color. Maybe it's a certain brick or creative building technique. Maybe it's a moving part or final display attribute. I usually will pimp what I buy and build.

Now the one thing I hate with any LEGO set is stickers and if it has a ton of stickers, I try not to build those. The Triple E was an exception. Loved the ship. Hated the stickers and that set's value can be affected by the excessive sticker count.

[Val-E]

Also, how may sets are actually bought by and for the end user? Many are non AFOL wives buying stuff for their husbands or kids - they don

[trekgate502]

That trek, is because you are the single most optimistic person I have met on BP. Keep being that way. 

 

For the rest of us, who sometimes can't see the bright side of things, I'll say if you are stuck with a bunch of sets that are losers or you think are losers, better try to get rid of them quick even at 0 profit and put your money to work in something else. 

 

Thanks MathBuilder!

 

It certainly makes for a happier day taking the positive approach.  Sure I have some dogs but it is to be expected.  For example I won't invest in the new little Star Wars B Wing, but if someone gave me one free, would I think its an awful set? probably not I'd be happy to have one.

 

I regret with Chima it took me what a couple of years to come around and like it and now that I am its on its way out...

[biniou]

Also, how may sets are actually bought by and for the end user? Many are non AFOL wives buying stuff for their husbands or kids - they don

Edited April 4, 2015 by biniou

[pete411]

I'm seriously curious to know who is buying all of the $800 SSDs. Certainly not wives who would never allow such a monstrosity in their home! I mean 36 of them sold on ebay in the US alone last month. Whoever is snatching them up, it gives me hope that the Sandcrawler will appreciate nicely after retirement.

[Val-E]

If money is no object, you will buy whatever makes your spouse or child content and if you can afford it you probably have a living space with ample room for a collection like this.

 

I would also argue the point that some people find it harder to spend 800 on themselves than on a loved one. From my experience, the bulk of people buying my stuff on eBay are either other resellers or women buying gifts for others. Talking to customers about their purchase is very educational!  

[speedsausage]

I also have a feeling the Fairgrounds Mixer will do well after retirement. Just need to get my hands on one to build with PF before investing in them. With sets like these, I always like to build them before buying. If I like it, that's my way of telling me AFOLs will also down the road.

Speaking from experience, many, many people who buy something (whatever it is), have either not informed themselves (enough) about the product or have not really made up their minds about it the moment they order it. Those - and it is the majority, I would say - are the ones that thing called "returns" was invented for. Most of the people DO in fact go blindly spending their money. On Ebay they don't even read the few lines describing the prodcut - speaking from experience. So most of the buyers of anything are not really "educated" about their buy.

Aside from that being said, "building" a set is about 2-4 hours, whereas "looking at it" is for the rest of the time, namely YEARS. Hence when buying a set 99% will decide after what the finished model looks like and not after the building experience. That is why I do not at all consider building experience a relevant factor when deciding about investing in a set or not.

I like jaisonlines method with building a set and how that helps him with his decision process, it gives perspective. Rfish has a good point about display time vs. build time. I also agree it helps to be aesthetically pleasing but to say that the build has no relevance, I'm not so sure. It's LEGO after all. Build has to factor into it at more than 1%, otherwise we would all be buying models and figurines.