75159 - UCS: Death Star (2016)

[gregpj]

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

[biking_tiger]

6 minutes ago, Deadfraggle said:

I could go on and on, but I gurantee the moment the photos get released the bitc**ng and complaining will start a nanosecond later. It will probably make the comments on the Disney Cinderella's Castle look sane.

So in other words, the only way for LEGO to win is not release it at all.

[Ciglione]

1 minute ago, dcdfan said:

I'll just start now by saying, I hate it.

I am boycotting this set.

So far I am doing fine keeping my word.

[BrickStanley74]

I have zero. Not getting any. Ever.

[biking_tiger]

Just now, BrickStanley74 said:

I have zero. Not getting any. Ever.

In for 10.

[Deadfraggle]

1 minute ago, biking_tiger said:

So in other words, the only way for LEGO to win is not release it at all.

There's a lot of truth in those words. All joking aside, we're getting round three of the DS, a mere year after the last one. Why not one of the other excellent choices for an UCS?

[fossilrock]

Although, it's not my cup of tea, I think they met the objective with the Disney Castle Set.  The set is a gem, and as a collectible, I can see it have a base price at 350.00.

However, there are some sets this year I think are overvalued. I'd say the Ghostbusters Firehouse, Batcave, and Attack on Hoth are about 20% higher than what they should have retailed for.

I'll give them a pass on Big Ben, the VW Beetle, and Brick Bank.  Although, the Brick Bank maybe should have retailed for under 150.  I guess the point is, that the more they overvalue their sets, it makes me think harder about the purchase, let alone as an investment.

[asharerin]

3 minutes ago, Deadfraggle said:

There's a lot of truth in those words. All joking aside, we're getting round three of the DS, a mere year after the last one. Why not one of the other excellent choices for an UCS?

10188 DS playset sold more than any other SW set. It was a huge huge money maker for TLG. So will 75159.

[Ciglione]

If... 75159 is too much similar to 10188 with just updated figs I will stop buying lego and quit investing. 

[sv_lego]

When do you think we will see some pics?

[asharerin]

25 minutes ago, Ciglione said:

If... 75159 is too much similar to 10188 with just updated figs I will stop buying lego and quit investing. 

I am going to hold you to that

[exciter1]

Although, it's not my cup of tea, I think they met the objective with the Disney Castle Set.  The set is a gem, and as a collectible, I can see it have a base price at 350.00.

However, there are some sets this year I think are overvalued. I'd say the Ghostbusters Firehouse, Batcave, and Attack on Hoth are about 20% higher than what they should have retailed for.

I'll give them a pass on Big Ben, the VW Beetle, and Brick Bank.  Although, the Brick Bank maybe should have retailed for under 150.  I guess the point is, that the more they overvalue their sets, it makes me think harder about the purchase, let alone as an investment.

I think many folks will think they cut a lot of corners with Cindy's Castle too for $350. Many of those flaws have already been pointed out here.

[CM4Sci]

2 minutes ago, asharerin said:

I am going to hold you to that

So will I.

[legoverzamelen]

 

But in all seriousness, at that price, I'm going to be really bummed if it only comes with like 5 minifigs and not 2 dozen+ like the last one.

We'll know for sure by september 15th at latest.

Anybody up for building a Lego 43-days-DeathStar-Countdown-Timer?

[Stud-Flipper]

1 hour ago, exciter1 said:

All of the above.

I don't understand where you're getting your references for piece count. If it was a $300 value set, it'd only have ~3,000 pieces. That doesn't line up with other current large sets. The Slave 1 is $200, and has right at 2k pieces. The Sandcrawler is $300 and has ~3300 pieces. The TIE Fighter and Assault on Hoth are a bit less but still 11-12 cents a piece. So, therefore even at the least it can be reasonable be assumed it has atleast 4,500 pieces. Likely, 5k+. 10 years ago roughly, we got the UCS Falcon at $500, and it came with just over 5k pieces. So, piece count wise, especially in the really large sets, nothing has changed.

[exciter1]

I don't understand where you're getting your references for piece count. If it was a $300 value set, it'd only have ~3,000 pieces. That doesn't line up with other current large sets. The Slave 1 is $200, and has right at 2k pieces. The Sandcrawler is $300 and has ~3300 pieces. The TIE Fighter and Assault on Hoth are a bit less but still 11-12 cents a piece. So, therefore even at the least it can be reasonable be assumed it has atleast 4,500 pieces. Likely, 5k+. 10 years ago roughly, we got the UCS Falcon at $500, and it came with just over 5k pieces. So, piece count wise, especially in the really large sets, nothing has changed.

Have you seen how large the pieces are in 10188? Piece count is very irrelevant in most cases.

[Deadfraggle]

45 minutes ago, fossilrock said:

Although, it's not my cup of tea, I think they met the objective with the Disney Castle Set.  The set is a gem, and as a collectible, I can see it have a base price at 350.00.

However, there are some sets this year I think are overvalued. I'd say the Ghostbusters Firehouse, Batcave, and Attack on Hoth are about 20% higher than what they should have retailed for.

I'll give them a pass on Big Ben, the VW Beetle, and Brick Bank.  Although, the Brick Bank maybe should have retailed for under 150.  I guess the point is, that the more they overvalue their sets, it makes me think harder about the purchase, let alone as an investment.

@fossilrock

I'm cool with Cinderella's castle and GBHQ at $350. Batcave, AOH, and the Village are all a bit overpriced and a poor value IMHO. The rest are all gravy.

@asharerin

I guess I can't fault TLG for reverting back to their cash cow. Is it the best selling play set each year, or just total volume sold based on 8 years of availability?

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd love to have seen some of the larger prequel trilogy / clone wars ships given the UCS treatment. 

[landphieran]

Over saturation and over evaluation of sets is a huge problem at the moment. The star wars and super hereos rapid release of content seems to be bringing out the worst in Lego. Releasing tons of content at inflated prices with little creativity. Granted there have been some great sets (outside of those theme's) that i have really enjoyed. I anticipate a lot of older/newer sets aren't getting the attention they deserve because of the sheer volume of options and peoples limited buying power.

I believe in order to be successful the next couple of years you are going to need to be lucky and very diligent. Find the clearance deals, guess the correct sets (sets that aren't rapidly recreated, sets that are quickly retired, sets that have a lot of show time), and be very disciplined at not buying everything under the sun.

Personally, I am going to tip toe my way through the next few years... Being patient... Let people realize the sets they really want is the Haunted House, Sea Cow and Red 5. And no matter how many 80 dollar play sets they buy will bring them the happiness my haunted house will.

 

[Rodeogeorge]

1 minute ago, Stud-Flipper said:

I don't understand where you're getting your references for piece count. If it was a $300 value set, it'd only have ~3,000 pieces. That doesn't line up with other current large sets. The Slave 1 is $200, and has right at 2k pieces. The Sandcrawler is $300 and has ~3300 pieces. The TIE Fighter and Assault on Hoth are a bit less but still 11-12 cents a piece. So, therefore even at the least it can be reasonable be assumed it has atleast 4,500 pieces. Likely, 5k+. 10 years ago roughly, we got the UCS Falcon at $500, and it came with just over 5k pieces. So, piece count wise, especially in the really large sets, nothing has changed.

Lets get a chart visualizing this data!

 

[Lordoflego]

Big Ben 

[Stud-Flipper]

1 minute ago, Lordoflego said:

Big Ben 

Big Ben has a lot of tiny pieces, the same with the Taj Mahal and most of the large creator sets. But I bet if it does turn out to be a $500 set, the new Death Star's weight and 10179 will be within 10% of one another.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Stud-Flipper

[exciter1]

Big Ben has a lot of tiny pieces, the same with the Taj Mahal and most of the large creator sets. But I bet if it does turn out to be a $500 set, the new Death Star's weight and 10179 will be within 10% of one another.

Case in point

[Stud-Flipper]

2 minutes ago, exciter1 said:

Case in point

But look at the UCS Sandcrawler, it has some pretty big pieces. Believe me, there's no problem there.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Stud-Flipper

[Lordoflego]

2 minutes ago, exciter1 said:

Case in point

Exactly  

[exciter1]

But look at the UCS Sandcrawler, it has some pretty big pieces

I like the Sandcrawler over Cindy's Castle any day.

[Rodeogeorge]

Just now, exciter1 said:

Case in point

Indeed.  It has been stated before on this wonderful forum that weight is also a good, if not better metric.  That being said, I really hope Lego knocks it out of the park with this one.