Appears LEGO might actually be listening - RE: Re-issues

[Loghamel]

I was looking through the reviews for 10249 and saw a LEGO rep actually responded to one of the many negative comments regarding the reissue of the Toy Shop.  The reviewer, like many, was disappointed at LEGO for not being creative enough to release a new set for their Christmas village.  Here is the response:

Response from LEGO:By Jordan - Core Product Specialist, Consumer Services, October 1, 2015

It is obvious from your review and those that came before you that the Winter Village collection has a very passionate fan base. It was definitely not the intention of the designers to disappoint our loyal builders who have been with us since the beginning. 

After many tough conversations it was decided that we wanted to give all of our builders an opportunity to purchase the amazing Winter Toy Shop. While some builders were lucky enough the get this set in 2009 we have found that most families did not realize that this would become an annual tradition and missed this amazing set. With our designers having so many creative ideas for new and amazing Winter Village sets it was difficult to hold the reigns and re-release this set but it is in the interest of many of our younger builders and their families to make this happen.

To our loyal Winter Village builders, like yourself, we hear you and understand how frustrating this experience has been. It is through situations like this that we learn more about our builders and their expectations.

 

[Migration]

Hopefully they they learn something from this.

[KShine]

Listening, yes - Caring whatsoever, not so much.

[Ed Mack]

You know, I missed out on a 1953 Corvette, but I don't think Chevrolet will reissue the car for me and other fans....Lame excuse.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ed Mack

[KShine]

You know, I missed out on a 1953 Corvette, but I don't think Chevrolet will reissue the car for me and other fans....Lame excuse.

Don't forget that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Ed Mack]

Don't forget that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

...or the one.  

[chipbee]

Hopefully they they learn something from this.

it depends on whether the sales for this set is great or mediocre.

[Locutus001]

I'm not bothered by this re-release either. Mostly resellers (that still own a big stock of the predecessor set) will be bothered.

Most people probably won't and will be happy about this very beautiful seasonal set.

Same goes for Sets like the UCS MF. It has been almost 10years now and the MF is still one of the hottest sets out there. As an AFOL I'd be overwhelmed by a re-release! This is actually something positive I'd say.

[Loghamel]

I'm not bothered by this re-release either. Mostly resellers (that still own a big stock of the predecessor set) will be bothered.

Most people probably won't and will be happy about this very beautiful seasonal set.

Same goes for Sets like the UCS MF. It has been almost 10years now and the MF is still one of the hottest sets out there. As an AFOL I'd be overwhelmed by a re-release! This is actually something positive I'd say.

If that's the case, why not re-issue the Holiday Train 10173?  That set is older and much more rare.  If they truly have "so many creative ideas for new and amazing Winter Village sets it was difficult to hold the reigns and re-release this set but it is in the interest of many of our younger builders and their families to make this happen.",  then why not the Holiday Train?  Is it because the Train is trending at $894 or 10x MSRP, while the 10199 is trending at $105 or less than 2x MSRP?  This re-issue wreaks of needing production line space for something more important, say, a new line of sets for one of the most successful movie franchises of all-time with the largest cult following around the world.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Loghamel

[Loghamel]

I'm not bothered by this re-release either. Mostly resellers (that still own a big stock of the predecessor set) will be bothered.

Most people probably won't and will be happy about this very beautiful seasonal set.

Same goes for Sets like the UCS MF. It has been almost 10years now and the MF is still one of the hottest sets out there. As an AFOL I'd be overwhelmed by a re-release! This is actually something positive I'd say.

And the only people this is "actually something positive" for are people that like to pay MSRP or less for LEGO sets.  If you are a reseller, IE you see LEGOs as an investment, you need only look at the numbers I just posted to see why.  I believe most on this forum are the latter and will fail to see the 'positives' of reissuing retired sets.

[Alpinemaps]

...or the one.  

All these years later, and still.... Feels

[Locutus001]

If that's the case, why not re-issue the Holiday Train 10173?  That set is older and much more rare.  If they truly have "so many creative ideas for new and amazing Winter Village sets it was difficult to hold the reigns and re-release this set but it is in the interest of many of our younger builders and their families to make this happen.",  then why not the Holiday Train?  Is it because the Train is trending at $894 or 10x MSRP, while the 10199 is trending at $105 or less than 2x MSRP?  This re-issue wreaks of needing production line space for something more important, say, a new line of sets for one of the most successful movie franchises of all-time with the largest cult following around the world.

Well I guess in the next couple of years there might be another holiday train... I'd approve of this ^.^

 

And the only people this is "actually something positive" for are people that like to pay MSRP or less for LEGO sets.  If you are a reseller, IE you see LEGOs as an investment, you need only look at the numbers I just posted to see why.  I believe most on this forum are the latter and will fail to see the 'positives' of reissuing retired sets.

Well I guess after all LEGO is producing toys for 1. profit for the LEGO company 2. first hand consumers who want LEGO toys (mainly kids and families)

3. ... FOR INVESTORS!!! (or aren't they?... see link ;-) )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QRgKbDsVGU

 

 

[legone3]

"We hear you loud and clear, but sometimes we need to balance the demands of long time fans, collectors and resellers with those of new, younger customers, corporate executives and shareholders."

[Quacs]

The people most upset are the collectors that forked out big money to a reseller for this set with no thought that a re-release could even happen.  While resellers don't mean a thing to TLG, collectors should (and do).

[Loghamel]

Well I guess in the next couple of years there might be another holiday train... I'd approve of this ^.^

I would LOVE this as I don't have one, but it would suck for people who currently have one as a collectible or investment. 

[dcdfan]

If that's the case, why not re-issue the Holiday Train 10173?  That set is older and much more rare.  If they truly have "so many creative ideas for new and amazing Winter Village sets it was difficult to hold the reigns and re-release this set but it is in the interest of many of our younger builders and their families to make this happen.",  then why not the Holiday Train?  Is it because the Train is trending at $894 or 10x MSRP, while the 10199 is trending at $105 or less than 2x MSRP?  This re-issue wreaks of needing production line space for something more important, say, a new line of sets for one of the most successful movie franchises of all-time with the largest cult following around the world.

10199 is only trending so low now because of the rerelease. It was not that low before...

Yes. It was nowhere near the train but it just wasn't where it is now...

[Locutus001]

I would LOVE this as I don't have one, but it would suck for people who currently have one as a collectible or investment. 

It would suck for people who have it as an investment. Most people who have it as collectible wouldn't bother.

I mean I generally agree that remakes decrease the value for collectors but on the other hand I'm not totally against them. Especially not if they increase the quality of the (new) set by making a better version. LEGO cannot and will not do this with all sets of course, so LEGO'll still hold a good value for collectors.

[Val-E]

It would suck for people who have it as an investment. Most people who have it as collectible wouldn't bother.

I mean I generally agree that remakes decrease the value for collectors but on the other hand I'm not totally against them. Especially not if they increase the quality of the (new) set by making a better version. LEGO cannot and will not do this with all sets of course, so LEGO'll still hold a good value for collectors.

As mentioned before, once the seed of doubt is in the buyer´s mind it can affect all sales as they are likely to hold off expecting a remake. Depending on how often TLG rinses and repeats the strategy, this will affect ALL resellers.

[Ryan Junior]

It would suck for people who have it as an investment. Most people who have it as collectible wouldn't bother.

I mean I generally agree that remakes decrease the value for collectors but on the other hand I'm not totally against them. Especially not if they increase the quality of the (new) set by making a better version. LEGO cannot and will not do this with all sets of course, so LEGO'll still hold a good value for collectors.

Problem is we will never know which one's will be re-released . So investing heavily in any set involves risk, - more than it did before. Maybe they won't do it on the more expensive sets that have had bigger gains (EOL prices) . 

[Val-E]

They won´t do it where the cost outweighs the benefit (rare parts, expired licences) but I wouldn´t rule out bigger sets as SW has seen it all before.

[redcell]

As mentioned before, once the seed of doubt is in the buyer´s mind it can affect all sales as they are likely to hold off expecting a remake. Depending on how often TLG rinses and repeats the strategy, this will affect ALL resellers.

This won't impact resellers as much as it will impact the long term investors. I didn't buy into the Toy Shop, but I'd I had, I would have sold them long ago and reinvested the money. For resellers who aim to flip their complete inventory every 1-2 years, this development would be good because it would decrease the amount of product being withheld after EOL for all of the reasons stated elsewhere, but wouldn't decrease the demand during those interim periods between the first issue and the first re-issue of a set. Iny experience, secondary market demand is driven much more by regular consumers than collectors or investors, and those are the kind of buyers who aren't focused on the possibility of a reissue when they see evidence to pony up 2-3x RRP to buy a set.

[Ciglione]

I am reading some of the comments here with an open mouth. If you are a collector only I could understand you are happy with remakes or reissues. But as an investor? 

And people also think they have a choice of what will be remade. If it is the holiday train or the Millennium Falcon I would not mind. blablabla.

If they would remake the UCS MF our business will be over. Cause a 5k set will be destroyed economically. That will be the end. Our Stalingrad.   

[Sprocket77]

That will be the end. Our Stalingrad.   

So many would have gone with our Waterloo for that one.

[Val-E]

 

This won't impact resellers as much as it will impact the long term investors. I didn't buy into the Toy Shop, but I'd I had, I would have sold them long ago and reinvested the money. For resellers who aim to flip their complete inventory every 1-2 years, this development would be good because it would decrease the amount of product being withheld after EOL for all of the reasons stated elsewhere, but wouldn't decrease the demand during those interim periods between the first issue and the first re-issue of a set. Iny experience, secondary market demand is driven much more by regular consumers than collectors or investors, and those are the kind of buyers who aren't focused on the possibility of a reissue when they see evidence to pony up 2-3x RRP to buy a set.

I think that it will affect even the shorter term resellers and I´ll tell you why.

When sets retire and resellers haven´t got their number, what do they do? They buy them up at over RRP with the idea of long term hoarding. This is part of the reason some sets shoot up so quickly after eol (TH, AA, HE, GE, ToO). The euphoria when prices rocket initially drags more people into the trap until the price reaches a level that they know they cannot buy and then sell for a profit any time in the medium term. Prices then stagnate until the next wave of noob investors or dark agers comes in to soak up supply.

With remakes on the menu, this market (which in the end is a Ponzi scheme as the first sellers make money but the last ones don´t as there is no interest from real buyers at the price they want to sell at) will be eliminated as few are going to want take the risk of keeping something only for it to be reissued within their profit window. Their only hope is for some misinformed people, who don´t know about the new releases or have just looked at CC or GG prices on  ebay and think that every set will perform that way, help them out.

The QFLL buy em cheap and sell em quick strategy seems to be the safest bearing this in mind but timing is vital as we have seen so many times before. Look at 7965, the window was 6 months from EOL.

DISCLAIMER: This is only my personal opinion and may not represent the views of the "Everything is awesome in Legoland investing" group.

Edited October 12, 2015 by valenciaeric

[Locutus001]

I am reading some of the comments here with an open mouth. If you are a collector only I could understand you are happy with remakes or reissues. But as an investor? 

And people also think they have a choice of what will be remade. If it is the holiday train or the Millennium Falcon I would not mind. blablabla.

If they would remake the UCS MF our business will be over. Cause a 5k set will be destroyed economically. That will be the end. Our Stalingrad.   

Well the UCS MF is a 5k set by now... which is in my opinion too blown up already. If you hold on to a set that is worth 10x the original price you have paid because you are expecting it to increase even more then this says a lot about your investment strategy. If this bubble would burst people would have had 8 years time by now to sell their stock. Still sitting on more than 10 of these is voluntarily taking a risk where you wouldn't need to take one. That's the game! Take a big risk, win big or lose big.

It won't be my Stalingrad for sure. The UCS MF shows a lot speculative bubble signs. So being a (good) investor means more than just buying stuff and holding on to it forever doesn't it? It means adapting and coming up with strategies. It means to sell when you think you'll make a good profit and reinvesting. Or not. In the end these are all your decissions as investor and nobody is to blame if they fail.

"Oh sorry you only had more than 5 years time to sell a 500 dollar set for over 2000 dollars... well... and you didn't because you wanted to sell it for even more... yeah well... sorry that they reissued that set, that's just bad luck I guess".

I think most of us here can agree that if a set sells for so much money that we can get back twice the money we have invested that it is a good deal. If we can get back even more it is a great deal.

I agree that it loses it's value if 1. LEGO does it to a lot of sets 2. LEGO doesn't wait long enough... for example the new MF... 6 months after retirement of the old... that was a bad joke. But as collector I LOVE the new millenium falcon! If they bring out a new one I could sell it for 50% off and get the new one... as collector this is the "fee" I am willing to pay.

As investor that sucks... BUT having been well informed about the new MF I quickly decided (and adviced others to do so) to sell my 3 copies. All of them made me some good profit. Yeah sure not 500% profit... not even 100% profit for most of them, but still an average of about 50% profit. That's around 50dollar (and more) for each set. I wouldn't say that's bad for a set that has cost around 100 dollar.

I think that it will affect even the shorter term resellers and I´ll tell you why.

When sets retire and resellers haven´t got their number, what do they do? They buy them up at over RRP with the idea of long term hoarding. This is part of the reason some sets shoot up so quickly after eol (TH, AA, HE, GE, ToO). The euphoria when prices rocket initially drags more people into the trap until the price reaches a level that they know they cannot buy and then sell for a profit any time in the medium term. Prices then stagnate until the next wave of noob investors or dark agers comes in to soak up supply.

With remakes on the menu, this market (which in the end is a Ponzi scheme as the first sellers make money but the last ones don´t as there is no interest from real buyers at the price they want to sell at) will be eliminated as few are going to want take the risk of keeping something only for it to be reissued within their profit window. Their only hope is for some misinformed people, who don´t know about the new releases or have just looked at CC or GG prices on  ebay and think that every set will perform that way, help them out.

The QFLL buy em cheap and sell em quick strategy seems to be the safest bearing this in mind but timing is vital as we have seen so many times before. Look at 7965, the window was 6 months from EOL.

I agree. If longterm holding is no longer a profitable strategy then more resellers will start to take the short term strategy. That's bad for all of us.

 

In conclusion: WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT INFLUENCE ON LEGOS DECISSIONMAKING.

Also: It isn't profitable for LEGO to reissue most of their sets! There are licences that run out, there are market researches that show that it would be bad business for LEGO. And of course there'll be consumers who'll be upset about it. But let us be 100% honest here: Do you really think that the re-release of this christmas set has upset MORE people then it has made people happy? I doubt that. Same goes for potential remakes of UCS MF (or other SW UCS). More people will be happy about it.

The value of my old LEGO sets of course has also dropped since newer better sets are here. Most people just don't want 1990 castle sets if they can have a new and better one. And I am happy that LEGO brought out these newer better sets! (Because that also increased the overall value of LEGO as toy).

OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AS INVESTOR THAT THE VALUE OF A CERTAIN SET MIGHT NOT BE FOREVER! Talking about the UCS MF: I bet that even with a re-release you could sell it for 500$ (or more). So the actual value of that set actually would still be there whereas only the highly speculative value would decreased. I'm not saying that the wouldn't hurt many people. But on the other hand it wouldn't hurt them to sell now :-P But that's not my business but theirs. I bought Lone Ranger Sets... bad investment! Not your problem but mine. Simply made a bad investment decission. Holding on for too long onto a set also is a bad investment decission in my opinion. Don't blame me or anyone but yourself if it doesn't work. If it does I'm happy for you!

Looking at big shots here like emazers I'm wondering how (and if ever) he will sell his sets. But that is his business and I am sure that he's got a plan as he seems to be well informed about investments. Of course these sets have a high virtual value right now, but as every small investor like me might know: Bills have to be paid. Most people do not accept LEGO sets as payment. It's not easy and superfast to sell your stuff. I don't decide one day that TODAY is the day I'll sell all of my stuff and the next day it will be gone and I'll have made all the profits that brickpicker calculater told me I'd make.
If you invest in something and you just never sell it, you'll make no money. It's as simple as that. Your decissions, your concequences. That's life.

I'll have to live with mine! (And the Lone Ranger sets... and probably the DS... and B-Wing... and so many more...). So please don't be offended if you'll have to life with your bad decissions.

(This is meant to be a general point of view not regarding anybody in particular! @emazers: Sorry but you're just the most prominent example here, I took you for no other reason and I hope the post doesn't seem to be disrespectful... if so please message me).

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by Locutus001