41058 - Heartlake Shopping Mall

[terrymc4677]

1 hour ago, lodibricks said:

I don't get it either, but there's Friends sets from the past that have done really well and hopefully it's not just because it was the first wave.
Sets like Olivia's house were had for $40ish, now selling $100+. Heartlake High, Sunshine Ranch, a couple recently retired and on the rise.

As a house of only boys and and a rack full of purple and pink already, I'm a bit skeptical in buying any more sets that we have no desire in ourselves. However, bought at the right price, I don't see any Friends set being a loss.

3185 Summer Riding Camp is another good example. Granted, it was a TRU exclusive which made it harder to acquire when it was available, but it has performed well since retirement. There are several other Friends sets that have horses, stables, and the like which cost much less than what the Riding Camp is going for but parents still fork over the big bucks for it. 

I have downsized my Friends investments, but the Mall at $50 is a no brainer. Wish I could find some.

[exciter1]

7 minutes ago, terrymc4677 said:

3185 Summer Riding Camp is another good example. Granted, it was a TRU exclusive which made it harder to acquire when it was available, but it has performed well since retirement. There are several other Friends sets that have horses, stables, and the like which cost much less than what the Riding Camp is going for but parents still fork over the big bucks for it. 

I have downsized my Friends investments, but the Mall at $50 is a no brainer. Wish I could find some.

Hmmmm, I've bought 50 friends sets since this morning.

[Val-E]

A full sized set that was in every toy store xmas catalogue 2 years ago, was out for less than 2 years and with only 2 thread pages so far seems to be a sleeper. I´d definitely say it will be in demand but not at crazy prices so RRP buy in is a no-no for me.

I think more than a few people got burnt with Olivia´s House but the right Friends sets at the right buy in can still make good money.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Val-E

[terrymc4677]

1 minute ago, exciter1 said:

Hmmmm, I've bought 50 friends sets since this morning.

I am organizing your intervention as we speak.

[exciter1]

2 minutes ago, terrymc4677 said:

I am organizing your intervention as we speak.

You can be my holistic healer...

 

 

[redcell]

6 hours ago, Basictoaster said:

I get that its not likely to be replicated but I just don't see a target market for this 12-18 months down the road. The parents with the money who would typically purchase this for their daughter are more inclined to buy the new sets vs inflated prices of this set. I get that there are potential buyers other than parents but I feel that its such a small niche group that its not worth the risk. 

You're overthinking it.  The market is there.  These will be selling for somewhere north of $200 in 12 months...$49-$79 buy in and you're making solid returns. 

[tjj1984]

5 minutes ago, redcell said:

You're overthinking it.  The market is there.  These will be selling for somewhere north of $200 in 12 months...$49-$79 buy in and you're making solid returns. 

I'm inclined to agree with Basictoaster. I have a hard time picturing the target market for this set. In your opinion, what demographic is buying a generic set with no intrinsic nostalgic value at 2-3 times the original price when they could get more for their money by purchasing currently stocked sets at MSRP?

[Dr. Brick]

If that were true we would all be in the wrong bussiness...

[redcell]

In your opinion, what demographic is buying a generic set with no intrinsic nostalgic value at 2-3 times the original price when they could get more for their money by purchasing currently stocked sets at MSRP?

The same people who were paying me $225 for Summer Riding Camp, $100 for Heartlake High, and $175 for Heartlake Stables two months ago.

[tjj1984]

I disagree. I am confident that the vast majority of the secondary market is males aged 18-49 who are paying the premium to connect nostalgically to their childhood. This is backed by the demand for OT Star Wars sets--an IP which appeals universally to males aged 18-49. These Friends sets, on the other hand, do not appeal to that demographic.

Who is it, exactly, that they appeal to? Other re-sellers, maybe. Only because they're all operating under the assumption that LEGO sets will appreciate based solely on availability (or lack thereof). I contend that the secondary market is dominated by re-sellers and young men fresh out of their "dark ages". Unless a set appeals to re-sellers or appeals to the subset of young men who are nostalgic for the particular IP, it's not going to appreciate in value.

Edited February 20, 2016 by tjj1984

[tjj1984]

31 minutes ago, redcell said:

The same people who were paying me $225 for Summer Riding Camp, $100 for Heartlake High, and $175 for Heartlake Stables two months ago.

Fair enough, but who are these people? What else are they buying? Are they really suburban moms desperate to get their baby girl the shopping mall or are they people like you and me who are speculating on a set's "worth" based on its availability? 

First wave sets should be considered an anomaly and not a trend. I am unconvinced that the moms and dads of America are going to pay a premium to buy an old and unavailable set when there are plenty of other options available for far less money.

Edited February 20, 2016 by tjj1984

[nolanfan34]

6 minutes ago, tjj1984 said:

Fair enough, but who are these people? What else are they buying? Are they really suburban moms desparate to get their baby girl the shopping mall or are they people like you and me who are speculating on a set's "worth" based on its availability? 

First wave sets should be considered an anomaly and not a trend. I am unconvinced that the moms and dads of America are going to pay a premium to buy an old and unavailable set when there are plenty of other options available for far less money.

Honestly, you are better off in this game not trying to determine what is logical by the buying public. I have scaled back my Friends purchases, but somehow people find these things and are willing to buy them. Sunshine Ranch is not from the first wave, I picked them up for $35-$40, and I expect them to be $100 pretty quickly.

[tjj1984]

2 minutes ago, nolanfan34 said:

Honestly, you are better off in this game not trying to determine what is logical by the buying public. 

So you're advocating "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" 

Love your avatar, by the way. That was one of the most iconic moments of baseball during my childhood, haha.

[nolanfan34]

Just now, tjj1984 said:

So you're advocating "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" 

Love your avatar, by the way. That was one of the most iconic moments of baseball during my childhood, haha.

Sort of. I am not going to assume you are new to this necessarily based on post count, but for those who are, there are a lot of examples where it doesn't "make sense" that someone would pay some elevated price when they could buy 2-3x as much at retail, but it happens all the time. That's all. 

And the avatar, yes, I have a framed/signed copy I am looking at right now in my office. A classic. :-)

[tjj1984]

9 minutes ago, nolanfan34 said:

Sort of. I am not going to assume you are new to this necessarily based on post count, but for those who are, there are a lot of examples where it doesn't "make sense" that someone would pay some elevated price when they could buy 2-3x as much at retail, but it happens all the time. That's all. 

And the avatar, yes, I have a framed/signed copy I am looking at right now in my office. A classic. :-)

Thank you for not assuming that I'm new to this, but I am. I could be way off-base with my attempts to rationalize the market, but that's just the way I operate until I'm confronted with conflicting data. That's what drew me to this particular site--it tracks that data. (BTW--How often are the price histories updated? Currently they go to December but we're almost through February). I admit that I could be completely wrong, and that I have no evidence to support my opinion, but I still maintain that the evidence to support that certain lines (Friends) will appreciate based on past performance is flimsy at best, and most likely completely fallacious.

Sometimes I feel like I've entered a game of musical chairs in which I don't have access to the largest and most comfortable chairs.

 

**EDIT** I'd just like to add that I'm not trying to get rich off of this, I just want to break even for all of the money I'm spending on LEGO. Worst case scenario, I get stuck with extra LEGO sets. I don't have any interest in those extra sets being marketed towards girls ages 5-12, so maybe my bias is blinding me.

Edited February 20, 2016 by tjj1984

[justapilgrim]

Btw the what did you sell thread isnt just a brag thread. You will find many sets off your radar people are selling

[redcell]

Fair enough, but who are these people? What else are they buying? Are they really suburban moms desperate to get their baby girl the shopping mall or are they people like you and me who are speculating on a set's "worth" based on its availability? 

First wave sets should be considered an anomaly and not a trend. I am unconvinced that the moms and dads of America are going to pay a premium to buy an old and unavailable set when there are plenty of other options available for far less money.

If you're unconvinced, that's fine and you should stay as far away from those sets as you can. All that means is less competition for the rest of us.

[redcell]

13 hours ago, tjj1984 said:

Thank you for not assuming that I'm new to this, but I am. I could be way off-base with my attempts to rationalize the market, but that's just the way I operate until I'm confronted with conflicting data. That's what drew me to this particular site--it tracks that data. (BTW--How often are the price histories updated? Currently they go to December but we're almost through February). I admit that I could be completely wrong, and that I have no evidence to support my opinion, but I still maintain that the evidence to support that certain lines (Friends) will appreciate based on past performance is flimsy at best, and most likely completely fallacious.

Sometimes I feel like I've entered a game of musical chairs in which I don't have access to the largest and most comfortable chairs.

 

One additional piece of advice...if you want to make money selling Lego, you should not waste time trying to rationalize the behavior of buyers and, instead, accept the fact that it is a fundamentally irrational market.  For example, there is no rational explanation for why a set like a $10 set like 10666 (Junior Digger) is selling for over $50 on Amazon just as there is no rational explanation for why the 2006 version of the X-Wing (6212) languished after retirement and struggled to hit 2x MSRP on the secondary market while the 2012 version (9493) rocketed after retirement and hit 2x MSRP within a few months.  I could sit here for a few hours citing similar examples because they are legion.  If you spend your time trying to make sense of who is buying Lego on the secondary market and why they are buying them, you are going to get frustrated and miss out on a lot of opportunities.  You'll be much better focusing on the products themselves and looking for the patterns in what does and doesn't do well on the secondary market.  

[Val-E]

People paying 50% above RRP for DS 1 month after retirement when it was out for 8 years is another mystery.

[Brian Briggs]

Last holiday season Heartlake Grand Hotel was selling above retail on ebay although it could be easily had for more than 20% off retail in the months before. Obviously people are willing to pay above retail for non-retired Friends sets. So they surely should be willing to pay above retail for a retired Shopping Mall that is unlikely to be remade in the short term.

[Bold-Arrow]

2 minutes ago, Brian Briggs said:

Last holiday season Heartlake Grand Hotel was selling above retail on ebay although it could be easily had for more than 20% off retail in the months before. Obviously people are willing to pay above retail for non-retired Friends sets. So they surely should be willing to pay above retail for a retired Shopping Mall that is unlikely to be remade in the short term.

It doesn't always work like that my friend. 

[exciter1]

...and to think, I was just letting someone decide for themselves and go with their gut.  You guys are working too hard.

[HandyHand]

1 hour ago, Val-E said:

People paying 50% above RRP for DS 1 month after retirement when it was out for 8 years is another mystery.

Yeah, that completely baffles me too. The only explanation I could think of is the speculators who chose not to buy the DS while it was available, and now that it's retired and prices start to rise they jump in as a panic reaction of having missed it. But when the only people buying are the ones who believe they can sell it with a profit later down the line, it has all the characteristics of a pyramid scheme. 

But as long as a significant portion of the buyers actually open the set to build it the 2nd hand Lego market is still healthy. I hope that will be the case with the Heartlake Shopping Mall too.  

[tjj1984]

3 hours ago, redcell said:

One additional piece of advice...if you want to make money selling Lego, you should not waste time trying to rationalize the behavior of buyers and, instead, accept the fact that it is a fundamentally irrational market.  For example, there is no rational explanation for why a set like a $10 set like 10666 (Junior Digger) is selling for over $50 on Amazon just as there is no rational explanation for why the 2006 version of the X-Wing (6212) languished after retirement and struggled to hit 2x MSRP on the secondary market while the 2012 version (9493) rocketed after retirement and hit 2x MSRP within a few months.  I could sit here for a few hours citing similar examples because they are legion.  If you spend your time trying to make sense of who is buying Lego on the secondary market and why they are buying them, you are going to get frustrated and miss out on a lot of opportunities.  You'll be much better focusing on the products themselves and looking for the patterns in what does and doesn't do well on the secondary market.  

This is a much more thoughtful response than your first, and I appreciate it. I am sure you know more about this than I do. My comments were aimed to draw out this type of conversation. Thanks for the advice!

[tjj1984]

1 hour ago, exciter1 said:

...and to think, I was just letting someone decide for themselves and go with their gut.  You guys are working too hard.

It's not up to y'all to convince me of anything, but I kind of thought the point of having a forum was to have discussion. I've seen (and experienced) a lot of people respond in overly dismissive tones to people with low post counts. Is that really the kind of community you want to engender?

1 hour ago, Haay said:

Yeah, that completely baffles me too. The only explanation I could think of is the speculators who chose not to buy the DS while it was available, and now that it's retired and prices start to rise they jump in as a panic reaction of having missed it. But when the only people buying are the ones who believe they can sell it with a profit later down the line, it has all the characteristics of a pyramid scheme. 

That is exactly what I was trying to convey. I get the impression (from my limited experience) that this "business" has rapidly devolved into a market in which speculators are selling to speculators who are slightly behind the curve.

Edited February 20, 2016 by tjj1984