75159 - UCS: Death Star (2016)

[gregpj]

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

[Deadfraggle]

At the end of the day, I'm still going to get one. Just like I'm going to get an AOH. Why? because owning a LEGO Star Wars UCS/Exclusive set that's  done 50% to my perfect liking is still better than not owning one at all. As much as people complain initially, I'm willing to bet there's more AFOLs/collectors/SW Lego fans that end up buying these sets than end boycotting on principle.....

[Ed Mack]

I agree.  This blog came out around the last Toy Shop release, but if you haven't read it, it makes some good points.

http://www.fbtb.net/2015/09/13/lego-doesnt-care-about-your-collection/

 

Maybe the new version will get people interested in the other retired Winter Village sets. I doubt they all will be remade.

[jbacunn]

29 minutes ago, inversion said:

Also, at least $50 from that price increase is going straight to Disney. Don't have any illusions about the price hike. Just bumping up an outdated set by $100 would hurt LEGO's image, the update was needed even if it only happened because of Disney wanting more money.

I believe this is the reason they did it. They wanted to increase the price on the set but knew they would look bad increasing the price of an existing set. The solution, retire the existing set and make a "new" set with a higher price. Make a few changes and increase the piece count a little so no one can say it's an exact copy. I think it's a brilliant move by Lego. Greedy but brilliant. I only have one so I'm not concerned. I never liked it because it's a play set.  If I had a lot of these I would dump most of them. 

[Fenix_2k1]

Well they should stop calling it the Ultimate COLLECTORS Series then.

If Lego start ignoring the AFOL's with the Large Models they will damage their sales.

Case in point.

Before my partner met me, her son had Zero interest in Lego. It was my passion for it that got him into it. Even then it's competing for attention with so many other things. 

I'd estimate my Annual Lego building spend is probably 10 x that of what my partners son gets spent and no matter what sets Lego bring out, his own spending money is more likely to be spent on Fifa Points.

As for buying AoH or 75159 for him as a play set, it would be pointless. Most kids don't like sitting building Lego for much more than an hour and they want a finished product at that point. 

For reference, he's 10 and he's the only one of his group of friends who has any Lego. It's a sad state of affairs and it makes me fear for the creativity and imagination of our children but a £400 deathstar is unlikely to increase the number of children interested in Lego

[dcdfan]

I'm just disappointed that 75159 won't be a new set, which would've been exciting. I gave up on 10188 so long ago that I'm just numb to it.

Edited August 16, 2016 by dcdfan

[KShine]

34 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

Maybe the new version will get people interested in the other retired Winter Village sets. I doubt they all will be remade.

The Toy Shop re-boot hurt all of the Winter theme sets (and more).

Having "The" Winter Toy Shop, "The" UCS X-Wing, "The" anything, is special. Now instead of having "The" special set, you risk getting stuck with the shameful inferior one.

People paid for that special, "one day I would love to have that set" feeling. Replacing that feeling with "I got screwed by overpaying for this inferior model" has a lasting impact.

Edited August 16, 2016 by KShine

[Sprocket77]

This reissue makes perfect sense for Lego, this is one of their marquee sets and they wouldn't have wanted to take it off the market, but it was dated and needed a bit of a makeover, Disney probably also wanted their badge on it. If the sales were that good for the 10188 then they probably think it just needs tinkering and get it back out there.

Are normal punters really going to be that upset at a remake coming out so soon, I doubt it unless they had bought it in the last year or so. It's like Porsche bringing out a new 911 or Volkswagen a new Golf, they're always going to want their marquee car to be on the market.

The price increase makes sense in terms of current pricing from Lego, a huge number of the recent wave of Star Wars sets are very much overpriced, for example the Resistance X-Wing's RRP is 35% higher than 9493 and that was only reissued 4 years later. I couldn't imagine paying €400 for a Lego set for a kid, so I can't imagine paying €500 for a set for a kid either obviously, €400 or €500 won't make that much difference for the people that pay this much for a toy for their kid. 

People reference price increases being down to Disney, do they really not think that Lucasfilms knew what they're were doing when it comes to licencing, after all they pretty much invented movie merchandising.

[asharerin]

I really don't mind the rehash. It is not in TLG's best interest to take risks with such an expensive set. Most UCS sets are poor sellers and lose money. For every Slave 1(which is a hot seller and will be around for an eternity) there are 5 very slow movers. 10188 had a proven track record. It was the best selling SW set of all time. 75159 will continue that trend and its profits will help support the next round of losing UCS sets. TLG did us all a favor by keeping 10188 at its original $400 price tag from 2008. That was a gift. How many of us are still earning the same amount or paying the same rent or paying the same price for food as in 2008? A 20% markup over 8 years is tiny. After real inflation it is much cheaper than 10188 was in 2008/2009.

This move will hurt resellers for sure. TLG did their best to give a heads up. As a reseller it is your job to do research and remain nimble. Like any other job if you do it poorly you will have your head handed to you by your competition. It is disappointing because 10188 would have been one of those rare $1k+ sets and in short order. Will there be others? Probably not. These days if it sells it stays. If it is a dog it gets discounted or tagged "retiring soon" and that ensures oversupply on the aftermarket. Not alot of chance for something to slip through the cracks.

Don't let 75159 distract you. TLG is watching the success Lepin is having with its retired sets. It is getting a free window seat to a grand experiment. As resellers sometimes we try and "fool" ourselves into thinking that this or that will never ever happen (just look at the first pages of this thread). A fool and his money are soon parted.

[Miami Bomb Squad]

All of a sudden, a remake makes sense!
No, it makes No sense whatsoever, no matter which angle your pitching, 8 ***** years in production, this set should have been killed off.  

[fossilrock]

14 minutes ago, fuzzy_bricks said:

I agree.  This blog came out around the last Toy Shop release, but if you haven't read it, it makes some good points.

http://www.fbtb.net/2015/09/13/lego-doesnt-care-about-your-collection/

 

There is a lot of truth in that article, and I dont disagree with much that is said.  However, lego does seem to create minifigures for purposes of "collectibility", but anymore these boring rehashes are lazy and unispiring for anyone to want to keep collecting for the long term.  I'm not going to be foolish and spend 500 on a set for just 24 minifigures. The price per piece is also insanely overrated too because it's a licensed set.  Lego won't get my money on this set, so I can agree that lego isn't a collectible after all.   It is time to move on though, and i'd be foolish to invest more money into anything disney is a part of.  Long term, anyone that does that will get burned.  I've seen it happen too many times before.

[fantomas007]

8 minutes ago, asharerin said:

TLG did us all a favor by keeping 10188 at its original $400 price tag from 2008. That was a gift. How many of us are still earning the same amount or paying the same rent or paying the same price for food as in 2008? A 20% markup over 8 years is tiny. After real inflation it is much cheaper than 10188 was in 2008/2009.

 

11 cents for piece is a gift? And calculate with inflation is a joke too - in this logic, we can see price EUR 160 for modular next year, 170 next year, etc, so modular 2025 will have a price more than EUR 250... It doesnt work like this... And there is also different trend - a rise of fake lego companies competiting with TLG with low prices, not allowing TLG to do everything what they want...

The whole story is how to keep a popular set, already too long on shelves and with old-style figs, for further decade + how to make more money on it (since they cannot just increase existing price). Ideal way is make a remake.

[gregpj]

26 minutes ago, asharerin said:

I really don't mind the rehash. It is not in TLG's best interest to take risks with such an expensive set. Most UCS sets are poor sellers and lose money. For every Slave 1(which is a hot seller and will be around for an eternity) there are 5 very slow movers. 10188 had a proven track record. It was the best selling SW set of all time. 75159 will continue that trend and its profits will help support the next round of losing UCS sets. TLG did us all a favor by keeping 10188 at its original $400 price tag from 2008. That was a gift. How many of us are still earning the same amount or paying the same rent or paying the same price for food as in 2008? A 20% markup over 8 years is tiny. After real inflation it is much cheaper than 10188 was in 2008/2009.

Just FYI, after inflation .. 400 spent in 2008 is equivalent to 447 in July 2016. I guess that extra $50 really is going to Disney.

 

[dcdfan]

I'm posting this here because this is the hot DS topic at the moment. If a mod needs to move, I understand. So, I'm not finding anything online about smooth hair Princess Leia in any 10188 only 10198. Has anyone ever heard anything different? I'm thinking I might have some hope in a couple 2008 boxes. Anyone?

[fossilrock]

9 minutes ago, dcdfan said:

I'm posting this here because this is the hot DS topic at the moment. If a mod needs to move, I understand. So, I'm not finding anything online about smooth hair Princess Leia in any 10188 only 10198. Has anyone ever heard anything different? I'm thinking I might have some hope in a couple 2008 boxes. Anyone?

Have variants every played a role in lego purchasing?  I was under the assumption that variants are not really important to that many collectors. If anything, that specific part might be, but i'd say it's not going to be a big thing to swing someone to purchase a set that will be over a 100.00.

[KShine]

6 minutes ago, dcdfan said:

I'm posting this here because this is the hot DS topic at the moment. If a mod needs to move, I understand. So, I'm not finding anything online about smooth hair Princess Leia in any 10188 only 10198. Has anyone ever heard anything different? I'm thinking I might have some hope in a couple 2008 boxes. Anyone?

I don't believe so. Some might believe months/years later (after realizing that they had one) that it might have come from the 10188, but I haven't seen it reliably reported as having happened.

[dcdfan]

Have variants every played a role in lego purchasing?  I was under the assumption that variants are not really important to that many collectors. If anything, that specific part might be, but i'd say it's not going to be a big thing to swing someone to purchase a set that will be over a 100.00.

Smooth hair Princess Leia on her own is usually over $100. I guess I'm just grasping at straws. Back to the back of my mind they go.

[waddamon]

Should this be a restamped 10188, then the biggest impact to me is figuring out the real time horizon on these investments.  I stand by the fact that if creativity and new ideas leave Lego then they are on the decline of the business cycle, leaving opportunity for a solid competitor.  Greed kills, doesn't matter how popular they are.  People pay for exclusivity and rarity.  They will stop paying (over time of course) if things are no longer exclusive or rare.  I know I would.  So when to buy and when to sell becomes even more important.  I will begin listing my 10188 on Craigslist, one at a time to reduce risk.  No fees makes it a 15-20% compund return for me, which is good compared to other investments, but lousy compared to my Lego experience thus far.  

[tjj1984]

I hope CM4Sci doesn't mind, but I have copy/pasted his most recent post from the EuroBrick forums below.

" Here's a list of what I wrote down and remembered of the differences between the old and 'new' Death Star:"

[asharerin]

18 minutes ago, gregpj said:

Just FYI, after inflation .. 400 spent in 2008 is equivalent to 447 in July 2016. I guess that extra $50 really is going to Disney.

That is why I mentioned "real" inflation

[gregpj]

3 minutes ago, asharerin said:

That is why I mentioned "real" inflation

Sure, but "real inflation" isn't a number that can't be easily quantified ... it means something different to every group of people out to prove that governments don't know what they're doing.

I was simply pointing out that $400 in 2008 is still not $500 in 2016 without the DPI (Disney Price Index) included.

[Martae54]

So to summarize .. No IG -88 !!? and some new safety railing! not sure the empire ever gave a crap about safety?? No safety railing present is the way I would want it.. All it does is make playing with figures inside it much harder. 

[Darth_Raichu]

27 minutes ago, gregpj said:

Just FYI, after inflation .. 400 spent in 2008 is equivalent to 447 in July 2016. I guess that extra $50 really is going to Disney.

 

 

I bet $1 the D-tax was originally $100 and the LEGO team had to negotiate hard to get the MSRP down to $500

[BrickLegacy]

As a collector, I'm extremely disappointed.  This would have been a day one purchase for me.  No waiting for Christmas, no waiting for Rogue One.  Doors open and I'm driving two hours to the LEGO store, buying one of these bad boys, taking it home, and starting the build process with my kids.  I'd probably invite a few nieces and nephews over to help with the experience.  That excitement isn't there anymore.  Maybe some new fans that are just now coming out of the dark ages will get to have that experience, but for me, I just don't see the appeal over a handful of new minifigures and extra pieces.  

I guess I have higher expectations for LEGO.  The brand is supposed to be about creativity.  They mailed it in.  Just like Assault on Hoth.  That's two UCS duds in a row.  I understand the logic behind the business decision, but LEGO needs to understand how they got here.  Disappointing their most loyal fans does not help the brand. I'll be surprised if this flies off the shelves at $500.  I'm passing on this set.  I'll just a buy a couple of the new minifigures I like off Bricklink and call it a day.

As an investor I am also very disappointed.  Asharerin is right, this would have been a $1,000 set.  Time to move on, though. Congrats to those that knew this was coming and cashed in at the peak. I should have sold for $600+ a month ago but I took the gamble hoping the new set would be different. My buy-in wasn't as low as others but I've only held these for about a year so its not a terrible CAGR.  I should have bought more 75054 at retail.

[asharerin]

10 minutes ago, gregpj said:

Sure, but "real inflation" isn't a number that can't be easily quantified ... it means something different to every group of people out to prove that governments don't know what they're doing.

I was simply pointing out that $400 in 2008 is still not $500 in 2016 without the DPI (Disney Price Index) included.

That is why our wonderful economists love to look at the beloved Big Mac. $3.57 in 2008 vs $5.04 in 2016. I think most can relate to the Big Mac

[KShine]

17 minutes ago, tjj1984 said:

 

I just knew it always felt like something was missing.