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

[Val-E]

Another point is that sets like CC or 10179 have attained and sustained their growth as there has been a consistent imparity between supply and demand on the market. The same can be said of Arctic Plane.  o

Problems can start when supply exceeds demand and this can happen when too many sellers put their item onto the market at the same time (TH is an example) or if an alternative is found (lego reissues similar or identical product).

Some sets such as ToO and HH should weather the storm well if scenarios A and B are not met.

Even a set like 9493 could too as long as there aren´t a ton of them unleashed during TFA hype. Hopefully most people sold their ones by now fearing the remake but you never know.

 

[Ed Mack]

If another UCS Falcon is released it will be my fault that I kept it so long. As a collector at heart, I don't think I will ever sell mine unless I need to financially. The new set will be another opportunity to rinse and repeat. Although returns might not be as robust, what's the chances of another UCS Falcon reissue after two of them? Plus, they will not be the same regardless, so there will always be someone that wants the 30th anniversary edition.

[Ciglione]

Locutus001:

You are talking after the fact. And that is too easy. When the UCS MF was showing a value of 2k some years ago nobody would have expected and dreamed it would be 5k now. So if in three years time it is at 8k (when lego did not remake it by that time) you will be with your mouth full of teeth. If you are happy to leave 3k on the table that is your choice. But speaking about bad investing choices, you made the worse one then. You will have to sell alot of 7965's in 6 months time to reach a profit of 3k. 

Again... if the UCS MF gets remade by lego it will hurt the reseller and investing market drastically. UCS MF will no longer be the holy grail in the lego investing world. And that holy grail is every reason why we are here on this forum. That is one of the reasons why people buy lego sets in the first place. Cause it keeps its value. Hence, it even grows in value if you choose the right sets. Otherwise there is no reason not to buy the knockoffs. These are slowly getting better in quality and are alot cheaper. Lego is putting its good name and reputation at risk.

People who for example bought the original winter toy shop are the fans of the first hour. They are supporting lego for years. You cannot slap them in the face like Lego did with the Toy shop remake.  

 

[redcell]

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.

I think you are overestimating the effect and numbers of investors buying post-EOL. If price appreciation immediately post-EOL were driven primarily by speculation, we would see more sets shoot up and then decline in value as the price of the set stabilized to the true consumer-oriented market price because, ultimately, there are way more consumers than investors. Although we see this with a few sets like AA, it is more common to see sets rise steadily after retirement, which tends to indicate that the price is driven by consumers since they continue to purchase at ever higher levels. Also, when sets decline in value post-EOL, those changes are often fairly minor (generally less than 10% from their peak) and not suggestive of a fundamental shift in the outlook and price tolerance of the purchaser such as from investor to consumer.

[KShine]

What a bunch of nonsense - When the new UCS MF is made, people will just make more excuses.

Lines have been drawn, crossed, and redrawn - time and time again.

Edited October 12, 2015 by KShine

[Val-E]

 

I think you are overestimating the effect and numbers of investors buying post-EOL. If price appreciation immediately post-EOL were driven primarily by speculation, we would see more sets shoot up and then decline in value as the price of the set stabilized to the true consumer-oriented market price because, ultimately, there are way more consumers than investors. Although we see this with a few sets like AA, it is more common to see sets rise steadily after retirement, which tends to indicate that the price is driven by consumers since they continue to purchase at ever higher levels. Also, when sets decline in value post-EOL, those changes are often fairly minor (generally less than 10% from their peak) and not suggestive of a fundamental shift in the outlook and price tolerance of the purchaser such as from investor to consumer.

I think we need a full calendar year since retirement to be able to see where all these sets are headed. 

[Locutus001]

Locutus001:

You are talking after the fact. And that is too easy. When the UCS MF was showing a value of 2k some years ago nobody would have expected and dreamed it would be 5k now. So if in three years time it is at 8k (when lego did not remake it by that time) you will be with your mouth full of teeth. If you are happy to leave 3k on the table that is your choice. But speaking about bad investing choices, you made the worse one then. You will have to sell alot of 7965's in 6 months time to reach a profit of 3k. 

Again... if the UCS MF gets remade by lego it will hurt the reseller and investing market drastically. UCS MF will no longer be the holy grail in the lego investing world. And that holy grail is every reason why we are here on this forum.

 

First of all: There is no holy grail for me in this game. If most people on this forum are only here because of this "holy grail" status then maybe it is time that it is re-released as the logic behind that would be that less people start brickvesting ;-)

 

Secondly: Nobody is leaving 3k on the table as you put it. If you sell it for 5k then you make 4500$ profit. Not leaving anything on the table. Even if it would rise to 8k. Following this logic at 8k you would still need to hold because what if even later it is 10k? And if that mark is reached... what if 15k? At some point of time (if you are actually planning on selling) you need so sell and taking the "risk" (which is no real risk) that you could get more if you sell later. Same as you risk that you get less (because of remake!).

(That's as if you would say I'm saving 50$ because I'm buying a 150$ set for 100$... you are not saving anything, you are spending 100$...).

 

But as I said: This is none of my business. Everybody has got his own rules and strategies. But independently from my personal opinion (or yours) LEGO will re-release certain sets if they deem them profitable enough.

This discussion is about opinions and though being an investor I'm biased I still wouldn't care for some re-releases and even appreciate them. Maybe because I agree with Ed Mack on this one.

If another UCS Falcon is released it will be my fault that I kept it so long. As a collector at heart, I don't think I will ever sell mine unless I need to financially. The new set will be another opportunity to rinse and repeat. Although returns might not be as robust, what's the chances of another UCS Falcon reissue after two of them? Plus, they will not be the same regardless, so there will always be someone that wants the 30th anniversary edition.

From another thread (Star Wars 2016):

Reissues in the STAR WARS theme have been the status quo forever. A reissue of a UCS set every ten years or so is not punishing the secondary market in my opinion, quite the contrary, it is giving people the opportunity to reinvest all over again. Sure, can it hurt the value of the old set...yes, but I think after 10 years or so an investor could have made enough profits on the old one to make it acceptable...and worthwhile.

 

But people who have to make a living with brickvesting and struggle because of re-released surely do have my sympathy as I know how hard it is to be at the selling end. But as self-employed you always take a risk.

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by Locutus001

[citymorgue]

What's interesting about this whole conversation, are some of you guys thinking Lego has to cater specifically to you and only you.  As if Legos only motivation to making sets is to focus on secondary market prices.  Sure they are paying attention, but they don't care if they hurt some of your profits.

Secondly: Nobody is leaving 3k on the table as you put it. If you sell it for 5k then you make 4500$ profit. Not leaving anything on the table. Even if it would rise to 8k. Following this logic at 8k you would still need to hold because what if even later it is 10k? And if that mark is reached... what if 15k? At some point of time (if you are actually planning on selling) you need so sell and taking the "risk" (which is no real risk) that you could get more if you sell later. Same as you risk that you get less (because of remake!).

That's as if you would say I'm saving 50$ because I'm buying a 150$ set for 100$... you are not saving anything, you are spending 100$...).

I agree with this sentiment.  Look, in virtual currency, my Lego collection is over $11,000.  I've spent around $10,000. (I have opened and displayed almost 95% of my collection.)

Do I have $1,000+ in profit? Nope.  Technically because I haven't sold anything, I'm in the hole $10k.  For those that think their set is worth so much, until you sell it, you are in the red.

Go the other way though, UCS MF is worth 5K now, you think in a couple of years it'll hit 8K, but in 2 years Lego releases a new one, and BAM UCS MF is only worth 1K.  You technically didn't lose $3500 profit.  You earned $500 profit.  This is why I don't understand people that hold onto things forever.  It's all a risk.

Although, I'm totally enjoying some of the freak outs about all this end-of-the-world talk about Lego investing.  It's a toy people.

[Crustybeaver]

What's interesting about this whole conversation, are some of you guys thinking Lego has to cater specifically to you and only you.  As if Legos only motivation to making sets is to focus on secondary market prices.  Sure they are paying attention, but they don't care if they hurt some of your profits.

I agree with this sentiment.  Look, in virtual currency, my Lego collection is over $11,000.  I've spent around $10,000. (I have opened and displayed almost 95% of my collection.)

Do I have $1,000+ in profit? Nope.  Technically because I haven't sold anything, I'm in the hole $10k.  For those that think their set is worth so much, until you sell it, you are in the red.

Go the other way though, UCS MF is worth 5K now, you think in a couple of years it'll hit 8K, but in 2 years Lego releases a new one, and BAM UCS MF is only worth 1K.  You technically didn't lose $3500 profit.  You earned $500 profit.  This is why I don't understand people that hold onto things forever.  It's all a risk.

Although, I'm totally enjoying some of the freak outs about all this end-of-the-world talk about Lego investing.  It's a toy people.

I think there will always be collectors that will want to have the first edition, original or classic sets and will pay a price to get it. I look at the castle sets from recent years and no matter how much they are improved on or grow in size the classic Legoland sealed boxes will always hold more appeal. Look at G1 Transformers, they have had countless re-issues and copies made, even Masterpiece sets with improved durability and parts and yet the originals still sell for crazy money. I'm not saying that a remake of 10179 wouldn't affect the current price but with time its rarity would cause it to demand a premium that will always exceed any remake. I've lost count of how many times I've considered parting with silly money to have a G1 Transformer toy in a mint sealed box. It's difficult to put a price tag on nostalgia.

[conceptmachine]

I like what your saying crusty, however, there are a few differences.  Bricks don't change much and if the reissue design doesn't change much, and the box doesn't,  there realy isn't much if any reason to pay extra for the fist issues. Transformers first issues were built soo much better than they are now...and there are considerable changes that make them more desirable.

On that note I have a huge collection of vintage stuff...huge.  I haven't sold 1 solitary brick too.  I have probably close to 65k in un-opened sets.  Do I care to sell them...no...

This is money I consider lost.  I got them cause I love building them with my boys... i had very little when I was a youngster...I've basically bought everything I ever wanted...since I've become successful in my business.  I get these because it's fun to collect them.  Someday they will eventually go to a good home...

[Ed Mack]

It's all a gamble.  What happens if the next UCS Falcon (if there is one), is inferior to the old one?  To what levels will the 10179 reach?  How can people complain if LEGO reissues a similar set 10 years after the original?  It would suck, I agree, but can you blame them?

[trekgate502]

It's all a gamble.  What happens if the next UCS Falcon (if there is one), is inferior to the old one?  To what levels will the 10179 reach?  How can people complain if LEGO reissues a similar set 10 years after the original?  It would suck, I agree, but can you blame them?

Why yes, Ed, yes I can.

(joke)

[Darth_Raichu]

It's all a gamble.  What happens if the next UCS Falcon (if there is one), is inferior to the old one?  

People would still buy the cheaper newer ones, per R5 (some people maintain R5 is inferior to the previous UCS X-Wing).   This means the potential buyer pool for old UCS (X-Wing) has been effectively reduced.  Sure there is a subset who would buy older X-Wing no matter what, but the ones who would be satisfied with ANY UCS X-Wing are effectively no longer potential customers.  It would be extremely hard to maintain upward profit expectation with smaller pool of consumers.

 It would suck, I agree, but can you blame them?

Nope, they are in it to make  , not to become suppliers for a group of re-sellers.

 

There. I thought I would fill in for K-Shine today  

[Ed Mack]

People would still buy the cheaper newer ones, per R5 (some people maintain R5 is inferior to the previous UCS X-Wing).   This means the potential buyer pool for old UCS (X-Wing) has been effectively reduced.  Sure there is a subset who would buy older X-Wing no matter what, but the ones who would be satisfied with ANY UCS X-Wing are effectively no longer potential customers.  It would be extremely hard to maintain upward profit expectation with smaller pool of consumers.

Nope, they are in it to make  , not to become suppliers for a group of re-sellers.

 

There. I thought I would fill in for K-Shine today  

A new UCS Falcon would have to be as good or better to have an effect on prices IMO.  Anything inferior to the original will only help inflate the 10179's prices.  Even if the new Falcon is an equal to the old, what happens if it is a STAR WARS 40th Anniversary set released in 2017?  Would that make the 30th Anniversary Edition even more desirable to the whale LEGO investors out there?  Face it, the regular LEGO fan is priced out of these $5000 Falcons now anyway, so what will it matter if people who can't afford the old ones buy the new ones?  They are not in the buyer's pool to begin with.  

[gregpj]

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.

 

I've been looking for the original post/feedback, but I think LEGO may have deleted it. That's not at all what they originally said... their original statement was (paraphrasing) was they they had not realized that this had become an annual Christmas tradition and that they were sorry to have disappointed their fans.

Nothing ever gets erased on the internet .. I'll find it eventually.

 

[Darth_Raichu]

A new UCS Falcon would have to be as good or better to have an effect on prices IMO.  Anything inferior to the original will only help inflate the 10179's prices.  Even if the new Falcon is an equal to the old, what happens if it is a STAR WARS 40th Anniversary set released in 2017?  Would that make the 30th Anniversary Edition even more desirable to the whale LEGO investors out there?  Face it, the regular LEGO fan is priced out of these $5000 Falcons now anyway, so what will it matter if people who can't afford the old ones buy the new ones?  They are not in the buyer's pool to begin with.  

I give you 10179.  There are so many qualifiers attached to this set making the conditions for its current valuation impossible to imitate. I am more convinced than ever that 10179 is a bad example to use when discussing any aspect of LEGO investing

 

[Darth_Raichu]

I've been looking for the original post/feedback, but I think LEGO may have deleted it. That's not at all what they originally said... their original statement was (paraphrasing) was they they had not realized that this had become an annual Christmas tradition and that they were sorry to have disappointed their fans.

Nothing ever gets erased on the internet .. I'll find it eventually.

 

Oh c'mon, those CS people were just peons.  They had to response to the negative comments with something, until the higher ups came up with "official" answers.

[Alpinemaps]

I've been looking for the original post/feedback, but I think LEGO may have deleted it. That's not at all what they originally said... their original statement was (paraphrasing) was they they had not realized that this had become an annual Christmas tradition and that they were sorry to have disappointed their fans.

Nothing ever gets erased on the internet .. I'll find it eventually.

 

I do remember the statement you paraphrased being there originally.  You may want to check either Reddit or EB.

[Val-E]

I've been looking for the original post/feedback, but I think LEGO may have deleted it. That's not at all what they originally said... their original statement was (paraphrasing) was they they had not realized that this had become an annual Christmas tradition and that they were sorry to have disappointed their fans.

Nothing ever gets erased on the internet .. I'll find it eventually.

 

I think it is in our 10249 thread.

[Val-E]

A new UCS Falcon would have to be as good or better to have an effect on prices IMO.  Anything inferior to the original will only help inflate the 10179's prices.  Even if the new Falcon is an equal to the old, what happens if it is a STAR WARS 40th Anniversary set released in 2017?  Would that make the 30th Anniversary Edition even more desirable to the whale LEGO investors out there?  Face it, the regular LEGO fan is priced out of these $5000 Falcons now anyway, so what will it matter if people who can't afford the old ones buy the new ones?  They are not in the buyer's pool to begin with.  

A remake could be based on the TFA iteration so then there would be people that wanted both. However, as seen with even a lowly set like 7965, the new one wins on price and the old one loses value.

[Ed Mack]

I give you 10179.  There are so many qualifiers attached to this set making the conditions for its current valuation impossible to imitate. I am more convinced than ever that 10179 is a bad example to use when discussing any aspect of LEGO investing

 

Probably one of the worst.  Emotion plays a large role with the 10179 and will continue to do so. 

[KShine]

A new UCS Falcon would have to be as good or better to have an effect on prices IMO.  Anything inferior to the original will only help inflate the 10179's prices.  Even if the new Falcon is an equal to the old, what happens if it is a STAR WARS 40th Anniversary set released in 2017?  Would that make the 30th Anniversary Edition even more desirable to the whale LEGO investors out there?  Face it, the regular LEGO fan is priced out of these $5000 Falcons now anyway, so what will it matter if people who can't afford the old ones buy the new ones?  They are not in the buyer's pool to begin with.  

Even if they made an updated UCS Falcon out of cardboard, the 10179 would take a hit.

Since the performance of this set is very much an isolated incident, with valuations that are impossible to justify - a full recover would likely never happen.

[gregpj]

I do remember the statement you paraphrased being there originally.  You may want to check either Reddit or EB.

Sorry, I don't hang out on reddit or EB - BP is the only place for me.

I think it is in our 10249 thread.

I was trying to find the original since technically I can just edit a post on BP and add whatever I want.

Edited October 13, 2015 by gregpj

[Ed Mack]

A remake could be based on the TFA iteration so then there would be people that wanted both. However, as seen with even a lowly set like 7965, the new one wins on price and the old one loses value.

Even if they made an updated UCS Falcon out of cardboard, the 10179 would take a hit.

Since the performance of this set is very much an isolated incident, with valuations that are impossible to justify - a full recover would likely never happen.

I respectfully disagree.  Remakes don't always affect the old sets...especially iconic ones.  The last three sales of the 7191 UCS X-Wing are $1000.00...$1399.00...$1525.00...Certainly up from sales earlier in the year and very positive news for other older iconic UCS sets that could be remade.  There are collectors with money out there willing to spend it on special sets.  

[citymorgue]

Face it, the regular LEGO fan is priced out of these $5000 Falcons now anyway, so what will it matter if people who can't afford the old ones buy the new ones?  They are not in the buyer's pool to begin with.  

This^^^.  The set is already so far out of reach of the regular John, Jane, and Jimmy, that it really doesn't matter what price it's at.  Even if they released an updated TFA MF for $500, there will still be lots of people who would have to pass because it's a lot of cash to be waving around.  Of course those that could easily throw that kind of money around are more likely to be able to get a $5k MF.

 

I respectfully disagree.  Remakes don't always affect the old sets...especially iconic ones.  The last three sales of the 7191 UCS X-Wing are $1000.00...$1399.00...$1525.00...Certainly up from sales earlier in the year and very positive news for other older iconic UCS sets that could be remade.  There are collectors with money out there willing to spend it on special sets.  

You have to take into account scarcity as well.  That's the thing about these 15 year old UCS sets.  People talk about the doom and gloom, and sure the price will still take a hit, but just because an updated model is released doesn't mean there aren't purists out there and completionists who will go out of their way to get it all.  Because of shear rarity, 7191 was still going to be worth money.  And the people who couldn't afford it before 10240 came out, probably still couldn't afford and would have rather bought the newer version, which never would've changed the fact that they couldn't afford 7191.

That's why I honestly think remakes in the 8-15 year mark post retirement really isn't all that bad honestly.  In that time frame, plenty of time will have passed to make a lot of these sets rare and hard to come by in their own rights, as over time, instructions will be torn/ripped/thrown away, and same with boxes.