75159 - UCS: Death Star (2016)

[gregpj]

This one is for you LEGO, inspired by @BrickLegacy and brought to you by Brickpickers everywhere.

[jstodda]

oh jeez.  i wonder what this confidential set is?  no wait a minute, they left clues !  mystery solved.

 

Yes. Clue. That red brick is "what's new"... Lol

[NJKelly]

When this new UCS Death Star was confirmed, I felt like the artist in the picture.  I didn't do the full Rita Hayworth but still had a wee flounce to myself and dropped my proverbial palette and brush.

This hasn't popped up on Lego's European or Oz sites yet.  As usual, our friends in the US get there before the rest of us...!  Must be very special, though: three, count 'em, three "Exclusives" tags!

Also, putting "75159" into the Search box on the UK site doesn't even return a "Sorry, 0 results" message; it just clears the screen and leaves the header and footer which probably means we'll be getting our holding page soon enough.

[Ed Mack]

2 hours ago, GhostDad said:

I think there's potential in this approach.  The Death Star needs to be brought to the attention of a hypersensitive cultural lobbying group of some kind, who can pressure Lego to discontinue at once this offensive toy that resembles their Sacred Marble of Specialness.  Or something.  It worked for Jabba's Palace anyway.  We'll never see a remake of 9516.

The name really offends me. Kids shouldn't be exposed to such horrible things.  

[Phil B]

Jang is as always nuanced:

Another UCS release, another Internet full of vitriolic comments that frequently delve into libel and personal attacks against LEGO employees.  Here's my take on it all, complete with several heaping servings of counter-snarkiness.
 

Objective:

The original set's $400 USD in 2008, adjusted only for inflation, would be around $450 USD today.  The updated set has 200+ more parts and 3 more proper figures.  In 2008 dollars the updated set should have been roughly $425.  In 2016 dollars that would be approx. $475.

Now looking at a constant baseline for value, the updated set is $25 USD or 5% overpriced.
 

Subjective:

Overall I'm glad the UCS Death Star is back on the market.  The original was still selling decently well when it was available, so it's good that people who still want it will be able to buy it at retail again, rather than having to pay "investor" prices for the original (which, interestingly, jumped straight to $500+ USD immediately after the discontinuation -- recognize that number?).

Price, as per the emotionless, fact-based simple analysis above, is about 5% on the high side.  To me, 5% in 8 years is not something to revolt over, especially when I consider that this 5% number will, itself, be neutralized by inflation in less than 4 years, or half the original set's lifespan.

Minifigure updates are overdue and the new Han hair looks good. The addition of more proper figures/droids is welcome.
 

Responding to The Hate:

"LEGO designers have gotten lazy."
 

• This is as valid as saying they have gotten Pluto, or chartreuse, or insert any other irrelevant, completely senseless word here.  This was never, in any way, a project to redesign the Death Star.  It was a simple update (the second for this set, by the way).  LEGO did not deprive deserving LEGO fans of their 2016 UCS AT-AT birthrights. The man-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of development budget required for a new UCS set were not available to this project.  Those man-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars were assigned to other sets, many of which have already been on the market being happily bought and enjoyed by many thousands of fans around the world.  Calling LEGO designers "lazy" is just spiteful slander.

 

"We're having to pay a Disney tax."

• At best misinformed, but frequently a lazy (!) old scapegoat argument. Data shows conclusively that LEGO spreads licensing fees across their entire product line.  Licensed theme sets have no additional fees included in their retail prices that are absent in original IP sets. You can spend some quality time looking at prices & price/part ratios at Brickset to confirm this.  I do so regularly, myself.

 

"LEGO has gotten greedy. It's $100 additional cost for $0 additional value."

• Most observers (myself included) reacted with shock to the sudden change of retail price by a factor of $100 USD.  That's a large number and a lot of money, period.  It begs the question, "why?" See the "Objective" section above.  Release to release, accounting for inflation (which is a must for any reasonable debate & comparison), it's actually $50 more cost for about $25 more value if you consider the parts and figures.  However, I do think it can be argued that the ~200 new non-figure-related parts can be ignored in a value discussion as they mostly fail to add to either play or display values, instead mostly contributing to durability, ease of build, updated internal building standards, etc.  There are still 3 more minifigs, so there is definitely some additional value, though it does not add up to $50.

"This isn't worthy of the UCS designation." 

• The UCS stamp was there on the original, and remains on the update. Whether the set is "worthy" of this stamp is debatable, but the factors behind that debate have not changed in any way.  If the Death Star is unworthy now, it was unworthy 8 years ago, (begin maximum sarcasm here) back when LEGO was not "lazy" or "greedy" and they made things for fans and not for money (end sarcasm).

"This is just a re-release. How dare LEGO try to trick us into believing this is a brand new set?"

• Nobody is trying to trick anyone into believing anything. LEGO said, and I quote, "The Death Star is back!"  Nowhere have they said, in any way, "look at this brand new never-before-seen design that we spent a full UCS development lifecycle to bring to you!"  This is an update to a pre-existing set.  That's all.

"Because of this and Attack on Hoth, we're not getting two proper UCS sets this year."

• This is partially true.  The Hoth project took quite a fair amount of internal effort to bring together, regardless of how the finished product was received by fans.  It also took up a new UCS set "slot," if you will, for the year.  The Death Star update, however, did neither.

 

Conclusion

A sudden $100 price increase definitely sucks.  However, it sucks a lot less when you consider the reality of inflation.  To avoid so many cries of "this sucks" in the future, all LEGO can do is regularly adjust for inflation the prices of products that are going to remain on the market over an extraordinarily long term. Of course, folks would say that sucks as well. This updated Death Star's build is practically unchanged, but the figure selection got an overdue, major upgrade.  The value based on parts & figures in the 2016's re-release is about 5% worse than what we got in 2008, but 5% doesn't strike me as a number worth rioting over.

 

All in all, I think this whole thing is about as big of a deal as LEGO is making it, which is not much at all.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Phil B

[donbee]

The first one was before release. I noticed that and redid it (worded differently) not using words like "ashamed, upset, disappointed in Lego, etc) and it still got removed the 2nd time. Lmao...I don't even read reviews if you look EVERY item they sell is always like 4-5 stars! Rarely you see a 3.

Maybe if you give it 4 stars and say it's the worse thing ever they may keep it...

Basically leaving a truly negative comment is a waste of time but that being said maybe make the person who monitors their site want to quit their job or file for medical leave from carpal tunnel from clicking delete to much...

I still think we should hold signs outside Lego!

Copy it on a word file and keep reposting. Someone will see it.

[California92563]

21 minutes ago, Phil B said:

Jang is as always nuanced:

Another UCS release, another Internet full of vitriolic comments that frequently delve into libel and personal attacks against LEGO employees.  Here's my take on it all, complete with several heaping servings of counter-snarkiness.
 

Objective:

The original set's $400 USD in 2008, adjusted only for inflation, would be around $450 USD today.  The updated set has 200+ more parts and 3 more proper figures.  In 2008 dollars the updated set should have been roughly $425.  In 2016 dollars that would be approx. $475.

Now looking at a constant baseline for value, the updated set is $25 USD or 5% overpriced.
 

Subjective:

Overall I'm glad the UCS Death Star is back on the market.  The original was still selling decently well when it was available, so it's good that people who still want it will be able to buy it at retail again, rather than having to pay "investor" prices for the original (which, interestingly, jumped straight to $500+ USD immediately after the discontinuation -- recognize that number?).

Price, as per the emotionless, fact-based simple analysis above, is about 5% on the high side.  To me, 5% in 8 years is not something to revolt over, especially when I consider that this 5% number will, itself, be neutralized by inflation in less than 4 years, or half the original set's lifespan.

Minifigure updates are overdue and the new Han hair looks good. The addition of more proper figures/droids is welcome.
 

Responding to The Hate:

"LEGO designers have gotten lazy."
 

• This is as valid as saying they have gotten Pluto, or chartreuse, or insert any other irrelevant, completely senseless word here.  This was never, in any way, a project to redesign the Death Star.  It was a simple update (the second for this set, by the way).  LEGO did not deprive deserving LEGO fans of their 2016 UCS AT-AT birthrights. The man-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of development budget required for a new UCS set were not available to this project.  Those man-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars were assigned to other sets, many of which have already been on the market being happily bought and enjoyed by many thousands of fans around the world.  Calling LEGO designers "lazy" is just spiteful slander.

 

"We're having to pay a Disney tax."

• At best misinformed, but frequently a lazy (!) old scapegoat argument. Data shows conclusively that LEGO spreads licensing fees across their entire product line.  Licensed theme sets have no additional fees included in their retail prices that are absent in original IP sets. You can spend some quality time looking at prices & price/part ratios at Brickset to confirm this.  I do so regularly, myself.

 

"LEGO has gotten greedy. It's $100 additional cost for $0 additional value."

• Most observers (myself included) reacted with shock to the sudden change of retail price by a factor of $100 USD.  That's a large number and a lot of money, period.  It begs the question, "why?" See the "Objective" section above.  Release to release, accounting for inflation (which is a must for any reasonable debate & comparison), it's actually $50 more cost for about $25 more value if you consider the parts and figures.  However, I do think it can be argued that the ~200 new non-figure-related parts can be ignored in a value discussion as they mostly fail to add to either play or display values, instead mostly contributing to durability, ease of build, updated internal building standards, etc.  There are still 3 more minifigs, so there is definitely some additional value, though it does not add up to $50.

"This isn't worthy of the UCS designation." 

• The UCS stamp was there on the original, and remains on the update. Whether the set is "worthy" of this stamp is debatable, but the factors behind that debate have not changed in any way.  If the Death Star is unworthy now, it was unworthy 8 years ago, (begin maximum sarcasm here) back when LEGO was not "lazy" or "greedy" and they made things for fans and not for money (end sarcasm).

"This is just a re-release. How dare LEGO try to trick us into believing this is a brand new set?"

• Nobody is trying to trick anyone into believing anything. LEGO said, and I quote, "The Death Star is back!"  Nowhere have they said, in any way, "look at this brand new never-before-seen design that we spent a full UCS development lifecycle to bring to you!"  This is an update to a pre-existing set.  That's all.

"Because of this and Attack on Hoth, we're not getting two proper UCS sets this year."

• This is partially true.  The Hoth project took quite a fair amount of internal effort to bring together, regardless of how the finished product was received by fans.  It also took up a new UCS set "slot," if you will, for the year.  The Death Star update, however, did neither.

 

Conclusion

A sudden $100 price increase definitely sucks.  However, it sucks a lot less when you consider the reality of inflation.  To avoid so many cries of "this sucks" in the future, all LEGO can do is regularly adjust for inflation the prices of products that are going to remain on the market over an extraordinarily long term. Of course, folks would say that sucks as well. This updated Death Star's build is practically unchanged, but the figure selection got an overdue, major upgrade.  The value based on parts & figures in the 2016's re-release is about 5% worse than what we got in 2008, but 5% doesn't strike me as a number worth rioting over.

 

All in all, I think this whole thing is about as big of a deal as LEGO is making it, which is not much at all.

I enjoy his reviews but that guy is always too positive and "happy go lucky". 

[Phil B]

2 minutes ago, California92563 said:

I enjoy his reviews but that guy is always too positive and "happy go lucky". 

Maybe ... I see the above more as a "how does a normal consumer look at this" kind of view. I know hardcore SW collectors and of course resellers don't like the 10188/75159 fiasco, but it's always interesting to see other perspectives. Jang makes a few good points, even if he's looking at it rather rosy.

[Bold-Arrow]

4 minutes ago, Phil B said:

Maybe ... I see the above more as a "how does a normal consumer look at this" kind of view. I know hardcore SW collectors and of course resellers don't like the 10188/ 75159 fiasco, but it's always interesting to see other perspectives. Jang makes a few good points, even if he's looking at it rather rosy.

We are not to discuss how Timmy would look at it because it ain't cool and repulsive .. Only negatives and down with Lego  

[Phil B]

3 minutes ago, Bold-Arrow said:

We are not to discuss how Timmy would look at it because it ain't cool and repulsive .. Only negatives and down with Lego  

 

[Ciglione]

[Lego Templar]

I enjoy his reviews but that guy is always too positive and "happy go lucky". 

Exactly! Lol every review is 5 stars. I like his page but I think he can't give his "honest" opinion...may cause an issue with Lego. Can't bite the hand that feeds you..

[Ciglione]

6 minutes ago, Lego Templar said:

 

 

Exactly! Lol every review is 5 stars. I like his page but I think he can't give his "honest" opinion...may cause an issue with Lego. Can't bite the hand that feeds you..

 

 

But the question is... who is feeding him? Lego or his viewers?

[Phil B]

7 minutes ago, Lego Templar said:

 

 

Exactly! Lol every review is 5 stars. I like his page but I think he can't give his "honest" opinion...may cause an issue with Lego. Can't bite the hand that feeds you..

Actually, Jang buys all his sets retail, does not get sponsored by LEGO, and does criticize sets. He does this in a family friendly way, so no harsh language or overtly negative tone, but check out his reviews of AoH or the new Octan Gas Station. Plenty of criticism to go round.

[California92563]

15 minutes ago, Ciglione said:

But the question is... who is feeding him? Lego or his viewers?

Based off his large haul videos he pays for the majority of his stuff. I'm sure lego gives him large sets from time to time but I think it's mostly just the way he is versus him being afraid of upsetting Lego. 

[Lego Templar]

Actually, Jang buys all his sets retail, does not get sponsored by LEGO, and does criticize sets. He does this in a family friendly way, so no harsh language or overtly negative tone, but check out his reviews of AoH or the new Octan Gas Station. Plenty of criticism to go round.

But the question is... who is feeding him? Lego or his viewers?

Maybe not yet. But as his page grows and has more eyes I'm sure (in the future) Lego will either approach him or vice versa. I like his reviews but "I don't like this but overall it's an amazing must have set" stuff like that doesn't focus on it. You're right Phil he isn't going to make a 15 minute video about what he doesn't like. Best thing to say is nothing at all. Defending Lego doesn't seem to make me believe he isn't getting a kick back one way or the other.

Like I said I like his channel I just don't like the points he's trying to defend Lego with is all. I would pay 1,000 for a Lego set that's not the issue its just to rerelease and add a few pieces...a new hair cut and a cheese slope and ask for 100 dollars more just upsets me as the business model not so much the set and rerelease its self. It's 2 times within a few months. Is this the end of the "wtf Lego?!" Or the beginning?

It's reminding me of Apple! Got so big and now they release the same phone year after year...because they know people will buy it. Yes it's a business but don't lose your identity in the process. Lego has always struck me as a humble company that enjoys being themselves and having their own identity. I'm more upset at Lego as a company over the set itself...it's hard to express that on a forum/via text.

I think we have beaten the horse enough it's just upsetting and I think a lot of us feel the same way...

[gregpj]

In this case Jang is wrong. He's spinning what is really being said...

1) We said the designers were lazy in the Hoth set because so much was WRONG with the set. We said LEGO as a whole was lazy for rereleasing the Death Star.

2) He's taking the whole Disney tax way too seriously. Nobody but a few tin foil hats believe it... Besides, how do we know that LEGO doesn't use the price per brick ratio (he should also know better to reference the price by weight ratio) to up the price of non licensed sets to make a few extra bucks? Apparently he knows something we don't.

3) This isn't the first set we think LEGO has been greedy for. Some sets are great value and others not so much. At $500 this goes from decent value to not so much.

Also, you can't magically knock $25 off because of new mini figures and 200 parts some of which are teeny cheese slopes. How do we know the true cost? With all the extra printing on minis they do these days I bet they are cheaper to produce so where is our value?

4) 10188 had no such stamp... Though it was considered UCS.

5) No but they retired the old one, and cleaned out by labelling it as retiring soon. They never said "buy it now for $400 because it's coming back and going to be $500." That's pretty dishonest in my books.

5) So he works for LEGO and is aware of the effort? They probably put a lot of effort because they made up so much of the set from nothing. If they had used the source material it would have been easier.

Conclusion.... We can spin this however we choose, but overall 75159 is a huge disappointment. In my mind it makes Ass on Hoth somewhat appealing because it was an attempt (feeble) to offer something different. It's kind of a Hoth Super Pack in where the Deah Star is essentially the same.

[Ed Mack]

The 10188 was not originally classified as a UCS set.  As for the rest of Jang's responses, he is welcome to his opinion.  I beg to differ on many of them.  Like my old Gran Pappy used to say..."You can put a cheese slope on a 10188, but it's still a 10188."

[Lego Templar]

The 10188 was not originally classified as a UCS set.  As for the rest of Jang's responses, he is welcome to his opinion.  I beg to differ on many of them.  Like my old Gran Pappy used to say..."You can put a cheese slope on a 10188, but it's still a 10188."

Yours did too?! Must be an old war story.

[gregpj]

The 10188 was not originally classified as a UCS set.  As for the rest of Jang's responses, he is welcome to his opinion.  I beg to differ on many of them.  Like my old Gran Pappy used to say..."You can put a cheese slope on a 10188, but it's still a 10188."

Maybe but in 2011 LEGO decided it was..

http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/UCS_Promotional_Poster

What I find hilarious is that the UCS badge would have looked good on that old 10188 box. The box for 75159 is so fugly.

[CM4Sci]

Jang is awesome to me but yeah I have to agree he can be a little too positive. 

[Ed Mack]

That poster is the only place that the UCS moniker and 10188 was ever on the same LEGO print ad. Even Brickset did not label originally it as a UCS set. If it makes people happy, call it a UCS set, but it really did not match the original UCS design characteristics. Ewok Village should be a UCS set if the Death Star is one.

[fossilrock]

I really don't think this version will be out more than 2 years.  I really do believe that, then they'll probably retire this design for good.  Hopefully, there are only two variations of this original death star lego design..  Eventually the Original Trilogy sets are going to fade off.  Hate to say it, but eventually once these 6 new films start taking up more of the UCS line, these sort of OT sets will be less.  Enjoy the Hoth, Ewok, and Death Star sets while they are here.  Soon those pre-millenials will taking over, and they'll be requesting sets from today's era films.  

Anyway, the Death Star will obviously have two variants.  One with a 2000's era set of minis, and the other with this decades design variants.  By the end, the new one will probably be a lot less made, but I like the original version much better.  

For the personal collection, I think i'm going to keep the old death star, skip the new one, and instead keep at least one mint sealed box of each of the sets where most of these minifigure variants come out of (cantina, final duel, tydirium, DSTx4, ISD, New Version of the Pod Escape)..  Just hold them mint for the long term..and see where it goes.  I really do think you won't see many OT and Prequel sets as time wears on.  The chance of them doing complete themes like that will be even less.  For the OT collector, I think this last round from 2012-2015 was pretty freaking good.   Who knows where it will go, but other than Vader there doesn't look like there's much OT in Rogue One.  It's a whole bunch of new characters.

[RTRC]

So TLG lets the new star wars movie fandom clear out the 10188 stock.

TLG rebuilds the 10188 with (hopefully) better techniques and updated pieces.

Releases the 'new' 10188 right before the new star wars movie comes out that will feature the death star for $100 more.

Annnnd profit. Nothing new here.

[kiltyoneal]

I think one thing that Jang is overlooking is that the original 10188 set had a design cost factored into the price and since they basically re-released that same set, the design cost of 75159 is a small fraction of that original cost.  That should lower the cost to the customer.  Also, I think we can assume that Lego has become more efficient in manufacturing pieces and they're taking advantage of producing pieces in countries where labor is cheap.  This should also lower the cost to the customer.  Factoring both of these points in, I'd argue that the cost of the new set should be closer to $400 than $500.

[thedingman5]

50 minutes ago, kiltyoneal said:

I think one thing that Jang is overlooking is that the original 10188 set had a design cost factored into the price and since they basically re-released that same set, the design cost of 75159 is a small fraction of that original cost.  That should lower the cost to the customer.  Also, I think we can assume that Lego has become more efficient in manufacturing pieces and they're taking advantage of producing pieces in countries where labor is cheap.  This should also lower the cost to the customer.  Factoring both of these points in, I'd argue that the cost of the new set should be closer to $400 than $500.

That doesn't lower the cost to the consumer...it increases the margin to the manufacturer!  The fact that retired 10188's IMMEDIATELY sold for $500-$600 post-"retirement", was the last little bit of validation they needed to set the price @ $500.  Outside of some (limited) bad PR, this is a win / win / win / win scenario for LEGO.  Doesn't mean we like it, but its such an obviously valid business decision.