Lego 76052 Batman Classic TV Series Batcave Confirmed

[Val-E]

True, if TLG just stuck to the safe option of churning out Millennium Falcon playsets, there would be no shortages and no wiggle room for investors as supply would be fulfilled and everyone would have the same stash. When TLG spread themselves too thinly, it is good for us - also when a theme tanks in their eyes, it can sometimes work out well on the secondary market when the niche market missed out and want the product.

On the other hand, unpopular products are an investment trap and it´s not always easy to predict what will do well pre or post EOL - if it was we would all be millionaires.

Edited January 6, 2016 by valenciaeric

[mfortunek]

This set is definitely going to spark a lot of talk and some pretty divided positions. It would make sense that the decision to cease production on the Tumbler has something to do with it, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is officially announced this month and released Feb. 17 (instead of Hoth Base or something else). The timing all makes sense.

And one thing I can virtually guarantee is that this new old-school Batcave (whether people love it or hate it) is going to be even more good news for Tumbler sales.  People who hate the campy 1960s look of it are going to be even more desperate for the dark, gothic, Dark Knight vehicle. And people who love it are going to need all the cool Batman sets that Lego has made. I think this is good news for AA, too. All around good.

[fuzzy_bricks]

I like it, but if I take off the nostalgia goggles then I also see some similarities to the AA.  Sure, this may have a little more AFOL appeal due to the subject matter, but from these picture it doesn't stand out to me as something that you would instantly recognize.  Now, if there is something that is recognizable, it's the classic Batmobile, that piece is iconic and could really help the rest of the set along.

[Frank Brickowski]

Seeing the latest releases of big and expensive (mostly licensed) sets, some of TLGs decisions seem at least a bit "questionable" to me from the standpoint of a company trying to make (as much) profit (as reasonably possible) by selling a certain amount of sets:

- 75827: Ghostbusters Firehouse Headquarters -> Giant set for $350 based on the OLD movies (while a new movie is coming)
- 76052: Classic TV Series Batcave -> Big PLAYSET for a rumored amount of $250 based on an ANCIENT TV Series (while a new movie is coming)
- 76042: SHIELD Helicarrier -> Another giant set for $350 also based on a movie license that surely has nothing close to a Star Wars-like fan base (so how many of those Avengers fans are really going to shell out $350 for this set?)
- 71016: Kwik-E-Mart -> Another $200 set based on a series that might rather be on its was down than further up (imo)
- 71006: The Simpsons House ($200) - see Kwik-E Mart
- 70751: Temple of Airjitzu -> A $200 AFOL's set spin-off from a kids' theme
- 70810: MetalBeard's Sea Cow ($250)

...let's just say: I hope TLG know what they are doing and sales for all of those sets are solid enough to not result in any new economic trouble over time - which I doubt (at the moment) since they are the #1 toymaker in the world. But what goes up might come down someday... The potential "problems" I see in each of those new big sets are less enthusiastic fanbases and sets that seem a bit too expensive. There are more and more set releases making me think "Why (on earth) is LEGO releasing THIS (expensive thing) (and not something else with that license)?".

[TheOrcKing]

Even if a design or theme is not up my alley, I applaud LEGO for giving customers the option in the first place. I think we have become so accustomed to Star Wars always being there anything else can seem like a 'niche' market when truthfully Star Wars is a niche in itself along with Star Trek, Superman, James Bond, and a ton of other notorious properties we (or the industry) make a big deal out of. They are good and will be remembered for generations but not the only thing out there. Funny thing is once upon a time had you really liked Star Wars or Star Trek back in the day before they became a big deal, you were called a massive geek or super nerd or some other derogatory remark. Now people get weird if somebody doesn't like either.

Moving along, I believe sets such as this Classic TV Batman Batcave or themes based around Minecraft shows how much the company of LEGO is listening to its fan base instead of whipping up whatever is on the agenda then releasing it onto the world with fingers crossed people will want it. This is not a case where just a small handful of builders said "you know what would be neat? Classic Batman Batcave!". Some one person may have tossed the idea out there but in the end that one thought gained enough traction for serious consideration and here we are.

Anyway I have always enjoyed the 1960s Batman in all its goofy zany campiness of cheese. This set is in every way a playset with a very minimal amount of the manor shown inside or out. However it is supposed to be the Batcave not Wayne Manor and most of what was important to the scene is there including the ever classic Batmobile that I am more than ecstatic finally gets its due in true LEGO form. Now I wait for the instructions to become available just so I can see how they put it together then have a go myself. Also I love the Batcopter. Oh yeah.

[inversion]

16 minutes ago, rfish said:

Seeing the latest releases of big and expensive (mostly licensed) sets, some of TLGs decisions seem at least a bit "questionable" to me from the standpoint of a company trying to make (as much) profit (as reasonably possible) by selling a certain amount of sets:

- 75827: Ghostbusters Firehouse Headquarters -> Giant set for $350 based on the OLD movies (while a new movie is coming)
- 76052: Classic TV Series Batcave -> Big PLAYSET for a rumored amount of $250 based on an ANCIENT TV Series (while a new movie is coming)
- 76042: SHIELD Helicarrier -> Another giant set for $350 also based on a movie license that surely has nothing close to a Star Wars-like fan base (so how many of those Avengers fans are really going to shell out $350 for this set?)
- 71016: Kwik-E-Mart -> Another $200 set based on a series that might rather be on its was down than further up (imo)
- 71006: The Simpsons House ($200) - see Kwik-E Mart
- 70751: Temple of Airjitzu -> A $200 AFOL's set spin-off from a kids' theme
- 70810: MetalBeard's Sea Cow ($250)

...let's just say: I hope TLG know what they are doing and sales for all of those sets are solid enough to not result in any new economic trouble over time - which I doubt (at the moment) since they are the #1 toymaker in the world. But what goes up might come down someday... The potential "problems" I see in each of those new big sets are less enthusiastic fanbases and sets that seem a bit too expensive. There are more and more set releases making me think "Why (on earth) is LEGO releasing THIS (expensive thing) (and not something else with that license)?".

You are likely missing the big picture. LEGO does not want to get rich from AFOL set sales. They want to have new AFOLs with new themes and such, due to AFOL parents probably buying significantly more LEGO sets to their kids because they value them higher and also want to participate. If they can struck the right chords with a certain set that generates a new AFOL they just won.

[JRandall]

Temple of Airjitzu is too counterfeited to hold any long term value now even though it's easily one of the 20 nicest sets designed by LEGO.  For a parent looking to buy a birthday or Christmas gift, unless they are wealthy their kid may get 1 large set, and the odds of that parent just buying them a $350 heli-carrier when they can purchase multiple toys including smaller super hero or star wars lego sets is pretty far fetched, even if they are a rich AFOL. The rest of these sets hold some nostalgia and interest for the current AFOL's who might have watched Simpsons or Ghostbusters growing up, but only the oldest AFOL's watched batman and they probably already have the current Batman sets. I grew up in the 80's and 90's and would not shell out any money on these sets other than maybe 1 Seacow for a display and if someone wanted Simpsons for nostalgia, but $400 can buy you way more nostalgic toys and movies than two LEGO sets, we're talking filling part of a room for a $400 investment.  That would buy dozens of posters and movies and action figures and old toys from that best era for toys in the USA(80-90s).  Saying that any current youth age 15-20 will want these sets is a far stretch.  I would never even consider buying an Adam Smith batman set because it's too out of date and the current crop of sets and the older sets from the early 2000's are far better than that new design.

 

This old Pengiun set, Jokerland, and Arkham Asylum all put this retro batcave design to shame.

http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Batman-Batcave-Penguin-Invasion/dp/B000ERVL8E/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1452127415&sr=8-4&keywords=Lego+Batcave

 

By the time the current kids between 15-20 have enough money to purchase these larger sets, LEGO will have produced hundreds of newer and more appealing sets.  There is no long term value in most of these sets unless you can hold for years and years, and then with the number of new sets I believe you're taking a huge chance.

The Shield Heli-Carrier at $350 is pretty outrageous and the design just isn't good enough to warrant that kind of price.  Even if the piece count is high, it's not detailed enough with rare enough minifigures to demand that price.  The older Sandcrawler is nearly as good as the new one and even the new model's asking price of $300 is pushing it.

[Migration]

Adam West

[Ed Mack]

The Adam West Batman is Batman dammit. He is the original cool dude (along with William Shatner). I appreciate the effort here. It's something different and pays homage to a truly iconic show.

[chipbee]

2 hours ago, inversion said:

Yeah LEGO is surely run by idiots. They tried the pirate and castle rehashes and failed. The ship remakes fifteen years ago were a flop. Kingdoms Joust did not sell. Conclusion: classic LEGO themes don't sell that well. And you can bet that there will be a new exclusive ship some time down the line, they retired Sea Cow only recently, which was ironically a new ship with creativity. I want to see a cool Ghost Ship too, retailing for $350.

Also don't see why is it a problem that they are releasing sets that cover a niche market or just simply don't appeal to you. It's called diversity. Endless generic rehashes of the classic themes would not be boring for sure. 

Plus, more Minecraft micro worlds? Yeah, that is absolutely not niche... 

Finally, I haven't seen even a second from the TV series and still like the set. Bummer.

the fact is Lego is so big now that they will have many themes that only appeal to segments of the market. So long as every theme is profitable, they have not lost their marbles. Many investor keeps away from themes such as friends and dublo, but these sets sell very well to girls and parents with kids below 5 years old.

Back to Batcave, I think this set is nice, but wonder about investment potential as nowadays too many people are into this game. It can easily be the foundation of a much large Batcave MOC.

 

[redghostx]

Why does each set have to be an investment? Why can't some sets just be enjoyed and displayed?

There are dozens and dozens of investment sets out there and this may not be one of them but I look forward to adding this to the 7783 Batcave in some fashion.

Edit to add - POW!

[jaisonline]

Why does each set have to be an investment? Why can't some sets just be enjoyed and displayed?

There are dozens and dozens of investment sets out there and this may not be one of them but I look forward to adding this to the 7783 Batcave in some fashion.

Edit to add - POW!

Agreed. This is one of those sets where you break open the seals immediately after buying it. 7783 Batcave was another one of those sets.

[Quacs]

Any thoughts on whether the value of 7783 will be affected by this one?  I heart says no, my head says yes...

[ppsagehen]

Nice detail, the ropes seem to be like the pole in the ghostbusters firehouse...spins the minifigs around when they go down it.

[Darth_Raichu]

I like those single file studs surrounding the dark orange wall of the Wayne Mansion.  I bet they are there so we can pose Batman and Robin climbing/walking the wall   

[ppsagehen]

My son says in the video game Lego Batman 3 you can drive the old school Batmobile here and play some of the old school characters too: the old joker, batman, robin and cat woman.

[California92563]

I love the set but if it's $250-$270 then I'll be on the fence about buying it, the gbhq seems like a much better value if that's the true price of the batcave 

[exciter1]

If you want reaffirmation that a classic Mr. Freeze minifigure may be coming down the line, I'm sure this article was shared somewhere earlier.

http://minifigpriceguide.com/wordpress/mr-freeze-from-66-lego-batman-batcave-set/

[zskid00]

Now we just need Egghead and King Tut

 

[marcandre]

17 hours ago, redghostx said:

 

Why does each set have to be an investment? Why can't some sets just be enjoyed and displayed?

 

This is an investment forum. I have built my share of sets but I'm not interested in anything that won't make me money down the road. 

[California92563]

20 minutes ago, exciter1 said:

If you want reaffirmation that a classic Mr. Freeze minifigure may be coming down the line, I'm sure this article was shared somewhere earlier.

http://minifigpriceguide.com/wordpress/mr-freeze-from-66-lego-batman-batcave-set/

What about the Arnold Schwarzenegger Mr. Freeze?  

[exciter1]

22 minutes ago, zskid00 said:

Now we just need Egghead and King Tut

 

...and Mad Hatter

[inversion]

28 minutes ago, marcandre said:

This is an investment forum. I have built my share of sets but I'm not interested in anything that won't make me money down the road. 

Still, some people are behaving if LEGO's job should be releasing investment worthy sets instead of being a children's toy manufacturer, judging these releases as a bad and disappointing move by LEGO. And that behavior is annoying, for investors too, since LEGO does not have any responsibility towards our profit levels. Not talking about you, but there are some idiots who feel entitled to their LEGO profits and begin to fume at the company if it does something that would hurt their business.

[marcandre]

14 minutes ago, inversion said:

Still, some people are behaving if LEGO's job should be releasing investment worthy sets instead of being a children's toy manufacturer, judging these releases as a bad and disappointing move by LEGO. And that behavior is annoying, for investors too, since LEGO does not have any responsibility towards our profit levels. Not talking about you, but there are some idiots who feel entitled to their LEGO profits and begin to fume at the company if it does something that would hurt their business.

I won't blame anyone for looking at the investment potential of a set before anything else, at least on this website. I do agree with your point of the entitlement of some posters here lately. 

[exciter1]

23 minutes ago, inversion said:

Still, some people are behaving if LEGO's job should be releasing investment worthy sets instead of being a children's toy manufacturer, judging these releases as a bad and disappointing move by LEGO. And that behavior is annoying, for investors too, since LEGO does not have any responsibility towards our profit levels. Not talking about you, but there are some idiots who feel entitled to their LEGO profits and begin to fume at the company if it does something that would hurt their business.

Don't like it, ignore it.