10221 - UCS: Super Star Destroyer

[ZULU]

As a follow-up on my previous post: 

 

When looking at research on choice, there's clear proof that offering more than 7 products of the same type is killing the next $ of sales. 

So having more than 7 products > 150$ mark in one lego category would be too much already.

 

Today they have 6 products >= 150$ in that star wars category. One more and they have reached that MAX point. 

Today they have 6 modular buildings > 149$. One more and they have too much

 

Now that is interesting data...

 

Have a look for yourself: 

 

http://sheenaiyengar.com/the-art-of-choosing/excerpt/

 

An iInteresting read.

 

regards, J

[thehornedrat]

So which UCS will go next then?

 

Of all these sets which is the least sexiest? R2D2 I feel. Who buys that junkheap* anyway, limited playability value, I don't see R2 as an epic building activity the whole family or dad and junior(s)/daughters can get into, unlike SC, DS2 and SSD, what with children playing with the minifigs as they build making it more fun, playing with the playfeatures etc...

 

I think R2 may be next because of the B-wing precedent, where a more recent set was retired earlier than previous UCS releases, and it appeares that UCS playsets sell more because of they seem more family friendly with the inclusion of minifigs and playfeatures.

 

Just my 0.02 into this FUD.

 

 

 

*I have 2 actually, one opened, one still sealed in a dinged up box. Its a good build experience for adults. Family, nah I don't think so.

[stephen_rockefeller]

No offense but looks like you are the only person on this forum who thinks that.

[No More Monkeys]

So which UCS will go next then?

Of all these sets which is the least sexiest? R2D2 I feel. Who buys that junkheap* anyway, limited playability value, I don't see R2 as an epic building activity the whole family or dad and junior(s)/daughters can get into, unlike SC, DS2 and SSD, what with children playing with the minifigs as they build making it more fun, playing with the playfeatures etc...

I think R2 may be next because of the B-wing precedent, where a more recent set was retired earlier than previous UCS releases, and it appeares that UCS playsets sell more because of they seem more family friendly with the inclusion of minifigs and playfeatures.

Just my 0.02 into this FUD.

*I have 2 actually, one opened, one still sealed in a dinged up box. Its a good build experience for adults. Family, nah I don't think so.

SSD is a family build???

You must have the most patient children on Eart...

[Ed Mack]

So which UCS will go next then?

 

Of all these sets which is the least sexiest? R2D2 I feel. Who buys that junkheap* anyway, limited playability value, I don't see R2 as an epic building activity the whole family or dad and junior(s)/daughters can get into, unlike SC, DS2 and SSD, what with children playing with the minifigs as they build making it more fun, playing with the playfeatures etc...

 

I think R2 may be next because of the B-wing precedent, where a more recent set was retired earlier than previous UCS releases, and it appeares that UCS playsets sell more because of they seem more family friendly with the inclusion of minifigs and playfeatures.

 

Just my 0.02 into this FUD.

 

 

 

*I have 2 actually, one opened, one still sealed in a dinged up box. Its a good build experience for adults. Family, nah I don't think so.

A couple of things...The 10188 is not a UCS.  Also, the UCS R2-D2 is one of the best engineered LEGO sets ever created in my opinion.  For a UCS, which are supposed to be "display" sets, it has many features that enable you to actually play with it, unlike the 10221, 10179, 10030, 10018, 10019 and so on.  R2 is going nowhere with the new movies coming out.  R2 might not be sexy, but you can depend on him and future profits from his LEGO set.  He is one of the few characters that will see action in all the STAR WARS movies from what I hear.

[trekgate502]

A couple of things...The 10188 is not a UCS.  Also, the UCS R2-D2 is one of the best engineered LEGO sets ever created in my opinion.  For a UCS, which are supposed to be "display" sets, it has many features that enable you to actually play with it, unlike the 10221, 10179, 10030, 10018, 10019 and so on.  R2 is going nowhere with the new movies coming out.  R2 might not be sexy, but you can depend on him and future profits from his LEGO set.  He is one of the few characters that will see action in all the STAR WARS movies from what I hear.

 

I absolutely LOVE the R2-D2 set.  It is sitting in my office and I look at it every day.  I am probably under a rock to what some think, but I think it is a marvel of design and fun.

[trekgate502]

On R2-D2, PS I stared at the pristine sealed box in my house for a year before I decided to open it up and build it.

[mudcatsfan]

A couple of things...The 10188 is not a UCS. Also, the UCS R2-D2 is one of the best engineered LEGO sets ever created in my opinion. For a UCS, which are supposed to be "display" sets, it has many features that enable you to actually play with it, unlike the 10221, 10179, 10030, 10018, 10019 and so on. R2 is going nowhere with the new movies coming out. R2 might not be sexy, but you can depend on him and future profits from his LEGO set. He is one of the few characters that will see action in all the STAR WARS movies from what I hear.

while 10188 isn't technically Ucs, I've never understood why someone would try to note that distinction as If it mattered.

It's ultimate.

It's priced for collectors

who cares if it doesn't say Ucs on the box?

Also, you say R2 isn't going anywhere, but the you say we can count on profits from him. Isn't that contradictory?

Not trying to pick a fight, just making conversation :)

[abri123]

Re: SSD and UK.

 

Smyths toys have it in stock nearly everywhere and all toys in Smyths are 10% off this weekend with an additional

[trekgate502]

What's your guess - why didn't they keep Fire Brigade same way you think they might keep GE and SSD?

No More Monkeys - here is my wild guess - In March 2013, they decided to build the plant in China which is supposed to come online in 2016.  In their Denmark production and Mexico assembly? (not really sure what they do in Mexico just guessing), they are at a maximum on product output they can produce.  They are doing all they can and holding on to keep active all they can, diverting larger older sets to internet only sales as I mentioned in my theory.  The Fire Brigade in order to bring on the Cinema Palace and Parisian had to go, they were not close enough to line expansions or China coming online when they made that decision.  However they don't want to let any star wars or the GE EOL if they can help it, because, while the China plant's initial purpose is for that global region production, they may announce - speculating -  (which could be true) that demand is so heavy for Lego as their sales grow, that they are adding plant expansions both in Denmark and China (even as it is just coming online) and that since Denmark is growing too, that their China plant will be growing and will switch from a global regional production facility to a global production facility and then they will ramp it up and it eventually will become on par with Denmark in total output, and those margins from China production will gain them more net profit, while still making plenty off the Denmark production too.  With all of this going, all of this growth, and all the millions spent on the Lego dies, they will be able to keep more sets (I mean the sets more than $150 in value) live and not EOL - GE, SSD, and many of them.  Switching to having a % of their product in stores and another % (again talking large sets) online for years to come through the retail ordering internet channel.  Massive expansion of production, multiple global shipping plants, expansion everywhere and keeping it all alive.  Do not get me wrong.  I actually don't think this will happen.  It just crosses my mind, they have vaulted to the top of the toy business and have great management very focused on growth, expansion and profits.  My thoughts are is it impossible for this to happen? I don't think so.  Will it happen?  Probably not.  They could run the point of oversaturing the market so much with live sets no one knows what is available, and very confused.  Their comes a point when they have to EOL things.  At least I think.  But then again I begin to wonder.  Again these are thoughts I ponder when I sit back and wonder about wanting more prominent sets to go EOL and they haven't.  I think everything will be fine and these possibilities are just theories that will not happen.  At least that's my hope and belief.

[Ed Mack]

while 10188 isn't technically Ucs, I've never understood why someone would try to note that distinction as If it mattered.

It's ultimate.

It's priced for collectors

who cares if it doesn't say Ucs on the box?

Also, you say R2 isn't going anywhere, but the you say we can count on profits from him. Isn't that contradictory?

Not trying to pick a fight, just making conversation

With all due respect, I wrote FUTURE PROFITS.  As for the UCS designation, it is what it is.  UCS sets, with the exception of the Darth Maul and Yoda bust, all had UCS plaques and were serious sets, which tried to accurately portray a vehicle or character.  They were geared towards adults and meant for display.  They also lacked minifigures(except the SSD and 10179) and were not meant for "play."

 

The 10188 Death Star on the the other hand, is a minifigure based recreation of the Death Star, somewhat cute and comical.  I love it, but let's face facts, it was designed for kids, with maximum playability in mind.  If you want to categorize it as a UCS set, be my guest, but you might as well throw in the Ewok Village in the mix as well.  I don't think the UCS designation affects a set price wise.  UCS sets are valuable because they are awesome sets, not because of a name.  

[mudcatsfan]

With all due respect, I wrote FUTURE PROFITS.  As for the UCS designation, it is what it is.  UCS sets, with the exception of the Darth Maul and Yoda bust, all had UCS plaques and were serious sets, which tried to accurately portray a vehicle or character.  They were geared towards adults and meant for display.  They also lacked minifigures(except the SSD and 10179) and were not meant for "play."

 

The 10188 Death Star on the the other hand, is a minifigure based recreation of the Death Star, somewhat cute and comical.  I love it, but let's face facts, it was designed for kids, with maximum playability in mind.  If you want to categorize it as a UCS set, be my guest, but you might as well throw in the Ewok Village in the mix as well.  I don't think the UCS designation affects a set price wise.  UCS sets are valuable because they are awesome sets, not because of a name.  

 

What's interesting to me, is that Lego has created a situation where you can easily make insane profits by following an easily predictable pattern, or you can sink 10's of thousands into a set that 'should' very well deliver the same results (based on these patterns), and make nary a cent. In fact costing yourself thousands in opportunity cost. (Death Star, Tower Bridge, any other big set that still is alive past its predicted lifespan) 

 

And nobody knows if the pattern will hold or not. What's clear, is that each large set retires eventually........and once it does, it appreciates exceptionally. But what if they don't?

 

Thats why i keyed on your saying it's not going anywhere. That's the only thing that could prevent profits. If R2 follows the Death Star plan it will cost people money not yield profits. Therefore your statement of it not going anywhere (which i agree with) means the future profits may be many more years away than anyone would consider worth the investment. (retirement after Episode 7?.....even later?) If it takes 10 years for the death star to retire and double in value, did people make money on it, or did opportunity cost, cost to store, cost to maintain, and inflation mean they lost money?

 

As to Death Star or Ewok Village being UCS, i absolutely count them in. I don't view playability as an exclusionary trait. But i understand why someone might.

 

In fact, Lego themselves seem to think the Death Star is "Ultimate"

 

[MartinP]

As to Death Star or Ewok Village being UCS, i absolutely count them in. I don't view playability as an exclusionary trait. But i understand why someone might.

 

In fact, Lego themselves seem to think the Death Star is "Ultimate"

I agree. The DS and EV are very large sets in the Star Wars theme. I would consider the DS a UCS because of the amount of pieces in the set. As for the EV, it is a different story. The set has a lot of minifigures, but not as many pieces.

[Pirate]

In fact, Lego themselves seem to think the Death Star is "Ultimate"

Here we go again. Those are merely all the large 10xxx exclusives made up to that point.

Ultimate != Ultimate Collector Series

Sent from my iPhone using Brickpicker

[Ed Mack]

What's interesting to me, is that Lego has created a situation where you can easily make insane profits by following an easily predictable pattern, or you can sink 10's of thousands into a set that 'should' very well deliver the same results (based on these patterns), and make nary a cent. In fact costing yourself thousands in opportunity cost. (Death Star, Tower Bridge, any other big set that still is alive past its predicted lifespan) 

 

And nobody knows if the pattern will hold or not. What's clear, is that each large set retires eventually........and once it does, it appreciates exceptionally. But what if they don't?

 

Thats why i keyed on your saying it's not going anywhere. That's the only thing that could prevent profits. If R2 follows the Death Star plan it will cost people money not yield profits. Therefore your statement of it not going anywhere (which i agree with) means the future profits may be many more years away than anyone would consider worth the investment. (retirement after Episode 7?.....even later?) If it takes 10 years for the death star to retire and double in value, did people make money on it, or did opportunity cost, cost to store, cost to maintain, and inflation mean they lost money?

 

As to Death Star or Ewok Village being UCS, i absolutely count them in. I don't view playability as an exclusionary trait. But i understand why someone might.

 

In fact, Lego themselves seem to think the Death Star is "Ultimate"

 

The poster doesn't say UCS sets, it says "ultimate"  .  There are 4 or 5 sets on there that are not UCS sets.  The 10188 is not a UCS set.  Period.

[thehornedrat]

Maybe I should've used the word 'flagship' set, which hopefully would also define UCS and the biggest Star Wars sets of the theme, and spare everyone all this angst . I don't mean to rub people the wrong way. R2D2 is a great display piece mind.

 

Playfeatures on the SSD? was 0400 when I typed that lol. Apologies.

 

I totally forgot about the 2015 movie! A big reason to keep R2 on for longer then. 

[p8nt4lyfe]

The poster doesn't say UCS sets, it says "ultimate" . There are 4 or 5 sets on there that are not UCS sets. The 10188 is not a UCS set. Period.

Regarding UCS sets, the standard for UCS is no longer "includes display sticker" which I believe was the argument against the Death Star as a UCS set.  Considering that the Sandcrawler doesn't have a display sticker sheet, I think it's safe to say that the Death Star and even Ewok Village can be considered UCS.  If anything, we should probably just use the "Lego Exclusive" moniker as a judge.  If it's an exclusive Lego Store set (Sandcrawler, Red-5, Death Star, SSD, Ewok Village, R2D2) that probably counts it as UCS moving forward.

[johnwray]

Problem is, in the world of LEGO, there are going to be a lot more 10221s in existence than 10030s.

Sheer number doesn't matter. What matters is the ratio of # of sets to # of people who want them. Having twice as many 10221s doesn't automatically make it less valuable if there are also three times as many collectors as there used to be. I'm not saying there are 3x, but Legos have never been more popular, and Star Wars sets will have another boom period when the new movies come out, again increasing the number of fans who might want an Executor.

I think people get hung up on the fact that Lego is upping their production, but the reason they're doing it in the first place is because of increased demand--and that's good for us.

[jaisonline]

Problem is, in the world of LEGO, there are going to be a lot more 10221s in existence than 10030s.

Sheer number doesn't matter. What matters is the ratio of # of sets to # of people who want them. Having twice as many 10221s doesn't automatically make it less valuable if there are also three times as many collectors as there used to be. I'm not saying there are 3x, but Legos have never been more popular, and Star Wars sets will have another boom period when the new movies come out, again increasing the number of fans who might want an Executor.

I think people get hung up on the fact that Lego is upping their production, but the reason they're doing it in the first place is because of increased demand--and that's good for us.

Ed can't be more right.

[Ed Mack]

Sheer number doesn't matter. What matters is the ratio of # of sets to # of people who want them. Having twice as many 10221s doesn't automatically make it less valuable if there are also three times as many collectors as there used to be. I'm not saying there are 3x, but Legos have never been more popular, and Star Wars sets will have another boom period when the new movies come out, again increasing the number of fans who might want an Executor.

I think people get hung up on the fact that Lego is upping their production, but the reason they're doing it in the first place is because of increased demand--and that's good for us.

Rarity matters.  The 10030 is "rarer" than the 10221, the idea of more collectors can be debated.  Don't you think all these collectors will want a 10030 as well as a 10221?  I stated the 10221 should end up slightly higher in dollar value than the 10030, but only because of the starting price.  In reality, the long term ROI and CAGR of the 10030 will probably be higher after all is said and done IMO.

[jaisonline]

Rarity matters.  The 10030 is "rarer" than the 10221, the idea of more collectors can be debated.  Don't you think all these collectors will want a 10030 as well as a 10221?  I stated the 10221 should end up slightly higher in dollar value than the 10030, but only because of the starting price.  In reality, the long term ROI and CAGR of the 10030 will probably be higher after all is said and done IMO.

True, right, correct. Not everyone understands our logic. Not sure how many more different ways we can type it.

[Ed Mack]

Regarding UCS sets, the standard for UCS is no longer "includes display sticker" which I believe was the argument against the Death Star as a UCS set.  Considering that the Sandcrawler doesn't have a display sticker sheet, I think it's safe to say that the Death Star and even Ewok Village can be considered UCS.  If anything, we should probably just use the "Lego Exclusive" moniker as a judge.  If it's an exclusive Lego Store set (Sandcrawler, Red-5, Death Star, SSD, Ewok Village, R2D2) that probably counts it as UCS moving forward.

The argument against the 10188 is that it is a childish set and was never designated as a UCS set.  It is not accurate in appearance or proportion.  Same goes for the Ewok Village and Sandcrawler.  Sorry, the Sandcrawler is a nice set, but it certainly isn't UCS quality in my eyes.  LEGO did the entire line a disservice by adding the little hokey gold emblem on the box stating it's a UCS set.  

 

LEGO really cheesed out on the Sandcrawler UCS set IMO.  It's better than the first version, but a proper UCS Sandcrawler should have been 5000 pieces or more.  They threw on the corny UCS emblem to increase sales.  There is also something to be said about a classy looking box and set.  All you have to do is look at the classic box from the 7191 UCS X-Wing and compare it to the boring looking UCS Red 5 X-Wing box.  No comparison.  The sets are similar, but the 7191 looks more valuable.  

 

To me, LEGO really missed a golden opportunity to make a truly iconic theme of LEGO sets.  They should have made all the UCS boxes in a similar fashion to the Architecture boxes, black and classy with the STAR WARS emblem standing out in a glossy gold color.  The could include a quality instruction booklet with each set, that has a professional look and feel(like the AS book).  Each set should always include a plaque.  The UCS series could have expanded to other types of adult oriented models as well.

[Sauromosis]

If this increased demand is "artificial" in the sense that people don't really want the sets they buy to keep (such as ten SSDs) then it will dissolve in time, leaving a glut in the market.

[thehornedrat]

Maybe you should feedback to the Ambassador, if Brickpicker has one? or suggest this on Eurobricks. I would love the return of SW sets with epic no. of pieces. Minifig scale. Cavegod ATAT please. Go and vote for it on Lego Ideas if you haven't already done so. Since 7191 got remade into the 10240 Red-5, its only a matter of time till they remake the 10030. Maybe I'll get a 2-3 10221s and convert it into a 10030. Without the magnets. Heck, in Australia, its cheaper to simply import a used 10030.

 

Yeah, Sauro, alot of these sales are likely driven by speculative investments. Long term view may be different as scarcity develops. And if Lego updates and rereleases UCS sets (see 7191-10240) every decade or so, this just makes stockpiling UCS sets quite risky too. Although looking at the price guide of the 7191, looks like the price has held steady still and still increasing actually, even though demand has plunged since June 2013, when Red5 was announced, I think. There always will be a makret for collectors. Hold onto stock for too long and there may be a "magnetron effect" (as I call it) where demand drops because the set falls off public/collectors' consciousness.

 

Its my opinion anyway

[Anakinisvader]

Looks like LEGO may have slapped all the investors like a redheaded step child on this one.  Those "collectors" who really want the SSD will have a chance again to buy it and won't leave much room for the secondary market in the long run.  This will not leave very much room on the secondary market once this really is retired.  We may see some panic buying, mostly by investors, again but that's it.  Touche LEGO, touche.