75159 - UCS: Death Star (2016)

[gregpj]

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

[fossilrock]

Looks like the open market on Death Stars is around 465.00....  Eventually it will creep up and stay around 500.  Probably sooner rather than later.

[Frank Brickowski]

7 hours ago, Phil B said:

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.

 

The development of a UCS set costs >$100,000, maybe even 200,000 or 500,000? I mean, for real? Leaving aside that I find this hard to believe, TLG might - in this context - just have been seeking advice from some counseling agency like 2-3 years ago about how to raise their proftis even more. If development costs had really been THAT high, their counselors would surely have pointed out that TLG could/should save a lot of money there. So, maybe the recent series of disappointing re-releases, remakes and uninspired stuff is not due to a lack of designers (working for all the Disney sets), but because TLG intentfully decided to put less money (hence effort) into product development.

[Ciglione]

7 hours ago, gregpj said:

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.
 

All of your points are legit. Especially point 5. That is disgraceful behaviour from Lego. Deceipt to say the least.

[Ed Mack]

3 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said:

The development of a UCS set costs >$100,000, maybe even 200,000 or 500,000? I mean, for real? Leaving aside that I find this hard to believe, TLG might - in this context - just have been seeking advice from some counseling agency like 2-3 years ago about how to raise their proftis even more. If development costs had really been THAT high, their counselors would surely have pointed out that TLG could/should save a lot of money there. So, maybe the recent series of disappointing re-releases, remakes and uninspired stuff is not due to a lack of designers (working for all the Disney sets), but because TLG intentfully decided to put less money (hence effort) into product development.

Right.  I really don't think it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a UCS...or years for that matter.  But what do I know?  I know LEGO gives designers a budget to work with and each part has their individual production cost which restricts creativity at times.  But to think that it takes these talented folks in the LEGO design team years to develop a set is somewhat unbelievable.  

I would just like to make one thing clear...In no way am I or most other members are saying LEGO designers are lazy.  They are not.  LEGO...The LEGO Group is being lazy with the 75159.  The LEGO designers are told what their limits and guidelines are and they have to work within those to produce a set.  Now obviously LEGO decided that the 75159 would still be a viable set, so much so that they raised its price $100.00.  

I still believe the 75159 will under-perform.  Comparing it to other LEGO sets that sell for $150.00 less makes the 75159 look like a ripoff.  Add the counterfeits and existing 10188s that are flooding the market at lower costs, I just don't see this set as a long term retail option.  That's when the real dilemma begins...If this set retires normally in a few years, is it a viable investment?  

[Deanfjr]

One thing is clear, it will retire before the Disney Castle, that sucker is going to be around until we are not....

[Frank Brickowski]

11 hours ago, Phil B said:

 

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.

btw Jang's statement to me is truly in contention for "The closest-to-a-paid-comment-sounding non-paid comment of the year award".

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by Frank Brickowski

[KShine]

The Jang statement reminds me of any of the political commentaries you hear on news stations.

They choose specific details to dispute, disregard the overall view or intent of discussion, and somehow claim that the argument is now confirmed to be invalid.

[Deanfjr]

 

[ironbrick]

Honest assessment here...

I like it. When analyzing this set ask yourself if you are upset because it limits the profit potential on the earlier set...or if you really despise it and why? No one here has given any valid reasons as to why they are disliking it and you cannot claim to love the earlier model and not this one because they are essentially one and the same. (Queue the speculators who claim that is why they don’t like it...lol).

This doesn’t bother me at all. Lego continues to re-release updated versions of most of the iconic sets in the Star Wars line. 

Case in point: At-At has undergone several releases, but since Lego spaces them a few years apart speculators are able to fill in the gaps. Hence, no disappointment when a new At-At comes out every three years or so. 

I think the disappointment is from speculators who foolishly sunk ample amounts of capital in an item we all knew would be reproduced; it was a matter of when not if. 

But please feel free to carry on with the hate as this is a speculator’s site and I wouldn’t expect anything but. 

I have a neutral stance, but Jang’s comments are both valid and flawed. 

In conclusion, Disney has a tendency to oversaturate markets. As this whole thread has already pointed out this is already beginning. Expect it to be like this from here on out; hence my previous comments on this forum. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by ironbrick

[jaisonline]

11 hours ago, Phil B said:

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.

exactly. jang does criticize many sets or parts of sections in his reviews.  i wish also stated numerous times he buys his review sets and when lego does give him free stuff (e.g. the scooby doo sets in that box last yr), he gives them away in contests.

however, his Opinion piece on 75159 is property much incorrect in my opinion. http://www.jangbricks.com/2016/09/lego-star-wars-death-star-returns-my.html

• i don't like going by piece count by cost.  I wish folks would STOP using the 10 cents / piece standard.  it's useless for in-depth value conversations or when making comments to support opinions. Weight is the key factor.
  • if i have 200 or 100 bricks weighing 2 lbs, what's the diff?  nothing except listing 200 bricks gives more perception of value.
  • however, 10 cents per piece is fine for "on the fly" calculations.
• i somewhat disagree with his formulas (he added another) which include inflation and  "more proper figures/droids " makes up enough of the $100 increase.  In my opinion, $50 for 2-3 proper minifigs and 200 random elements is not worth the added cost.  personally,  i believe (with no proof) Lego might have included a small cost to help recoup 10188's lack of price increases to combat inflation from 2008 to 2015).
• i will reread Jang's article but i don't see verbal "dings" for the lack of innovation mentioned (like @just2good did in his video).
• Exact point by @kiltyoneal . I don't think much design innovation  / time was needed into 75150. Basically, rebuild 10188 step by step and document the changes as you go for structure and aesthetic enchantments.

  <

8 hours 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.

 

[Alpinemaps]

@ironbrick You say no valid reasons have been given. You must have missed the two times I've posted this. So here goes again.

In talking to COLLECTOR friends of mine, collectors who are missing less than 10 of every single LEGO SW "set" ever made - they feel disappointed. Cheated. They were hoping for something different. Something better.

Adding minor cosmetic changes (their words)to a set and rerelease it is disappointing. They heard the rumors of a new DS model and hoped for an update. You said it yourself - same models updated every few years. Yes the AT-AT or Snow Speeder or X-Wing has received updates every few years.

But that's not what happened. If the DS had continued selling as is, those people wouldn't have cared. But they perceived LEGO has going to develop something new. And perception is 90% reality.

You have a lot of disappointed fans that were hoping for something new and innovative - not the same set. And because it's a $400/$500 set (and not a $20 set being remade), expectations are going to be high.

[Ciglione]

24 minutes ago, ironbrick said:

Honest assessment here...

I like it. When analyzing this set ask yourself if you are upset because it limits the profit potential on the earlier set...or if you really despise it and why? No one here has given any valid reasons as to why they are disliking it and you cannot claim to love the earlier model and not this one because they are essentially one and the same. (Queue the speculators who claim that is why they don’t like it...lol).

This doesn’t bother me at all. Lego continues to re-release updated versions of most of the iconic sets in the Star Wars line. 

Case in point: At-At has undergone several releases, but since Lego spaces them a few years apart speculators are able to fill in the gaps. Hence, no disappointment when a new At-At comes out every three years or so. 

I think the disappointment is from speculators who foolishly sunk ample amounts of capital in an item we all knew would be reproduced; it was a matter of when not if. 

But please feel free to carry on with the hate as this is a speculator’s site and I wouldn’t expect anything but. 

I have a neutral stance, but Jang’s comments are both valid and flawed. 

In conclusion, Disney has a tendency to oversaturate markets. As this whole thread has already pointed out this is already beginning. Expect it to be like this from here on out; hence my previous comments on this forum. 

 

 

 

 

 

Chips! He is on to us. He's got it all figured out.

We have no more arguments for complaining. Now what do we do with our lives? And with all this time on our hands?

Maybe if we make him believe we agree with this guy his mission will be accomplished and he will disappear.

 

[redcell]

Chips! He is on to us. He's got it all figured out.

We have no more arguments for complaining. Now what do we do with our lives? And with all this time on our hands?

Maybe if we make him believe we agree with this guy his mission will be accomplished and he will disappear.

 

No Cig, if we all agreed with him, he'd simply flip and take the opposite of the argument. He's a contrarian, pure and simple.

Personally. I'm ambivalent about the new DS. I still think it's an odd decision on the part of TLG, but, at the end of the day, I don't really care. I'm dumping mine and am glad to finally be rid of them. They have taken up space on my shelf for too long.

[Lordoflego]

@ironbrick summoned @redcell by posting again, better get popcorn  

And like @Alpinemaps said, ironbrick had to miss several pages here if he thinks no valid points were gives as a reason for new DS dislike, but then again, I'm probably "WRONG, INCORRECT".  

[Darth_Raichu]

9 minutes ago, Lordoflego said:

@ironbrick summoned @redcell by posting again, better get popcorn  

"I wish I knew how to quit you"

[jstodda]

Honest assessment here...

I like it. When analyzing this set ask yourself if you are upset because it limits the profit potential on the earlier set...or if you really despise it and why? No one here has given any valid reasons as to why they are disliking it and you cannot claim to love the earlier model and not this one because they are essentially one and the same. (Queue the speculators who claim that is why they don’t like it...lol).

This doesn’t bother me at all. Lego continues to re-release updated versions of most of the iconic sets in the Star Wars line. 

Case in point: At-At has undergone several releases, but since Lego spaces them a few years apart speculators are able to fill in the gaps. Hence, no disappointment when a new At-At comes out every three years or so. 

I think the disappointment is from speculators who foolishly sunk ample amounts of capital in an item we all knew would be reproduced; it was a matter of when not if. 

But please feel free to carry on with the hate as this is a speculator’s site and I wouldn’t expect anything but. 

I have a neutral stance, but Jang’s comments are both valid and flawed. 

In conclusion, Disney has a tendency to oversaturate markets. As this whole thread has already pointed out this is already beginning. Expect it to be like this from here on out; hence my previous comments on this forum. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lego Templar]

"I wish I knew how to quit you"

It's bad. As soon as I see his name I just scroll even faster and avoid reading the comment like the plague . I'd rather wait in line for the "new" Death Star than add any fire to his post...lol

[jstodda]

It's bad. As soon as I see his name I just scroll even faster and avoid reading the comment like the plague . I'd rather wait in line for the "new" Death Star than add any fire to his post...lol

He is the cheese slope to your Death Star lol

[Deanfjr]

People:

[jaisonline]

Some folks might need to retake "Lego Set Refresh vs. Rehash - 101".
The mods can teach it (actually some of you could do a far better job) with Ed Mack as the guest lecturer.

10188 / 76159 and Toy Shops are rehashes.

10144 Sandcrawler and the new one are refreshes.

The last 2 non-UCS MFs are somewhere in the middle. This would make a good thesis topic.

[Alpinemaps]

2 minutes ago, jaisonline said:

Some folks might need to retake "Lego Set Refresh vs. Rehash - 101".
The mods can teach it (actually some of you could do a far better job) with Ed Mack as the guest lecturer.

10188 / 76159 and Toy Shops are rehashes.

10144 Sandcrawler and the new one are refreshes.

The last 2 non- UCS MFs are somewhere in the middle. This would make a good thesis topic.

I smell a blog post (or three) that needs to be written....

[KShine]

2 minutes ago, Alpinemaps said:

I smell a blog post (or three) that needs to be written....

Can't we just tweak an old blog, and call it new.

[Ed Mack]

2 hours ago, KShine said:

The Jang statement reminds me of any of the political commentaries you hear on news stations.

They choose specific details to dispute, disregard the overall view or intent of discussion, and somehow claim that the argument is now confirmed to be invalid.

We are a "no spin" zone here.  

[Ed Mack]

2 hours ago, ironbrick said:

Honest assessment here...

I like it. When analyzing this set ask yourself if you are upset because it limits the profit potential on the earlier set...or if you really despise it and why? No one here has given any valid reasons as to why they are disliking it and you cannot claim to love the earlier model and not this one because they are essentially one and the same. (Queue the speculators who claim that is why they don’t like it...lol).

This doesn’t bother me at all. Lego continues to re-release updated versions of most of the iconic sets in the Star Wars line. 

Case in point: At-At has undergone several releases, but since Lego spaces them a few years apart speculators are able to fill in the gaps. Hence, no disappointment when a new At-At comes out every three years or so. 

I think the disappointment is from speculators who foolishly sunk ample amounts of capital in an item we all knew would be reproduced; it was a matter of when not if. 

But please feel free to carry on with the hate as this is a speculator’s site and I wouldn’t expect anything but. 

I have a neutral stance, but Jang’s comments are both valid and flawed. 

In conclusion, Disney has a tendency to oversaturate markets. As this whole thread has already pointed out this is already beginning. Expect it to be like this from here on out; hence my previous comments on this forum. 

 

 

 

 

 

What's not to like?  It's almost an exact duplicate of one of the most iconic LEGO sets of all time.  That being said....

[JosephMali]

I am pulling way back in my investing because:

There are just too many remakes, rehashes, whatever, that hurt long-term investing. If it was only in the UCS star wars sets that would be one thing, but it is in several different themes now including architecture (which I used to think was safe from this, though I don't see a Robie House anytime soon). The relatively few Super Heroes remakes don't matter much because there is a new Super Heroes set every five seconds so that there are almost no exclusive minifigures anymore and most of the sets in the theme leave much to be desired (I don't see Wolverine Chopper happening again). This changes many things but a collector can always hold out the hope that a new remake will come out and so the demise of the concept of a collectable that will never come again will hurt prices even on sets for which there is no remake.

Longer and longer life spans for modulars and other larger sets in addition to some sets having very short life spans (Ultra Agents, etc) makes it difficult to buy near EOL. Loss of predictability may be fun for some, but regular EOL dates means much higher rates of return in a shorter time or at least it did for me.

And, though it is highly debated issue (with some notable exceptions like the PR and Ecto 1), I think the quality of sets is standing still.

Of course, there are other factors, like the notable increase of resealers, but the new Death Star, at least in my view, marks the end of a Lego investing era. There is still money to be made, but I'm not sure it is worth my time anymore.