75192 - UCS: Millennium Falcon 2017

[Furious_george]

It's the 40th anniversary , so they are remaking the best StarWars  set they ever made. Don't know about swords.

[Will 4]

6 hours ago, Huskers1236 said:

Depends on the dreaded sticker sheet.  They will probably make you wrap a sticker all around the front of the cockpit or some crap.  Obviously it will never be 10179, probably closer to 10240.  It will rise after it retires in 2023, but it will be slow after the initial jump.

what about the re-release 6 months later in 2024 at 1000$. Think that will cut it down

[KShine]

Never mind - I am getting tired of complaining.

Edited April 9, 2017 by KShine

[gregpj]

Never mind - I am getting tired of complaining.

I wouldn't sweat it.. lots of people around here got you covered.

I just can't see me purchasing this no matter the price (for collection). I've been considering offloading my personal SSD just because I'll never have a space to display it .. never mind a huge MF too. That snowspeeder tho...

[cissi]

6 hours ago, Furious_george said:

It's the 40th anniversary , so they are remaking the best StarWars  set they ever made. Don't know about swords.

My bad. Lightsabers.

[eliminator]

38 minutes ago, gregpj said:

I just can't see me purchasing this no matter the price (for collection). I've been considering offloading my personal SSD just because I'll never have a space to display it .. never mind a huge MF too. That snowspeeder tho...

I'm starting to feel this way myself. My current display collection is mostly medium-sized sets (UCS X-Wing sized) with little room for giant sets. I'm about to disassemble my 10019 Rebel Blockade Runner since I need to make room for the upcoming Snowspeeder.

I think I'm just getting jaded over the UCS MF. Last year I would have been the first in line for a 10179 remake no matter the price, but now I'm less excited. Unless there's something special with the initial release (number certificate or something) I will likely wait out.

[Guest TabbyBoy]

LEGO aren't stupid, there'll be a buying frenzy on the new MF regardless of price. There's just too many speculators out there that want to make a quick buck. However, we can expect this new set to be around for a very, very long time. I'd say buy one now and buy the other 99 in 5 years time! ;-)

[giannini78]

Also, Lego's LEGO Chief Marketing Officer Julia Goldin kinda let the cat out of the bag.  Go to 4:50 of the video.  
 
 

At first when she mentions the MF & Death Star at 4:30, I did think you were jumping the gun.

But yeah at 4:50. UCS MF is definitely coming!

[giannini78]

While most cheering for the remake ('can't wait to buy one!'), reading the development of the remakes of 10129 (soon coming in flesh as 75144) and this one, I couldn't imagine how those holding 10179 feel losing thousands of dollar per set. Either they've kept silent or only so few of them that they probably don't come to BP.
I'd certainly love to have a 10179 MF but learning about its remake is inevitably heartbreaking. This is a risk and yet very daring step TLG is willing to take. On one hand, it risks the majority of LEGO SW fans losing faith in sets' value while at the same time grateful given the chance to own one of the legendary sets. The loss by this factor alone could be a big price to pay and probably won't be compensate by the 10179 remake's profit. Either they have collected a handful of data (sale, fairs, forum discussion...) of every MF release since 10179 to back up the decision or they were just being dumb and reckless. But I think neither...
On the other hand, this could be TLG's (or Julia's) stabbing that sword right through the reselling market without any mercy. By releasing the one of the most high-profile, iconic (again, legendary) SW set (skipping other possible candidates), it reaches the 'star' and announces the war. The aftermath put all other sets in jeopardy as well. Potential buyers are not going to go too high for long retired set but wishing for a re-release. I guess that price of others may start showing decreases several months after 10179 remake even though there's no re-releases known of. This is probably what TLG likes to see and why the executive decision was made. It isn't afraid of decreasing its 'credibility' on sets' appreciation, even not giving a dime, and in a way, wants to put LEGO sets true D2C with playability, not collectibility. A true toy company - well, for this, it should really start to drop its PPP.
 
PS. I doubt the remakes of the landscape series would ever happen. Too bad that Taj Mahal is safe coz I could certainly have one. lol But yet, who knows...

I have no sympathy for anyone hoarding the original USC MF and has waited too long to sell. It's been in huge demand for years, so you snooze you lose. It was hardly going to go much further than £5K and to be honest, how much does a kit have to reach before people shift it.

If I had one, as soon as it hit £5K I'd have sold it. Failing that, the ultimate warning was the re-release of the Death Star last year.

People can't complain on this one, they have had ages to make a fortune on it.

[Pseudoty]

I don't think it was as much a shot at resellers as it was at counterfeiters. Look at all the sold units. No need to get your sets from Lėpin if you can get them from LEGO. 

[Average Guy]

10 years...10 years have gone by since the original in 2007. Did anyone really think this would be the Holy Grail of kits forever and LEGO  would 'honor resellers as the kit soared to $10,000'? HA! I can't believe it took LEGO this long for a remake. I sold my last one two years ago sometime  before The Force Awakens. LEGO didn't 'do it to hurt resellers'. They did it to make money. Disney  bought Lucas Arts to make money.

How old is Mickey Mouse? Nearly 90yrs old, and Disney successfully lobbies Congress to extend US copyright laws every single time Mickey's copyright is about to expire. Also Disney has publicly stated there will be a new Star Wars movie  every two years. Do you think that means new starships  and new characters every movie?  Disney will rehash and rewrite the original characters a million times for 90yrs, just like Mickey, until Han Solo's  great great great great great great-grandchildren are flying the Milennium Falcon, and LEGO will follow suit on the gravy train and rerelease the Falcon in all forms and themes. Heh...LEGO has been re-releasing Star Wars starships,  vignettes and characters many times over even before Disney bought Lucas Arts and started the turning the wheels on the bi-annual cash machine. If anyone thinks any Star Wars UCS kit  is sacred and off limits to be reproduced, then you are in for a cruel eye opener. 

 

 

[stephen_rockefeller]

1 hour ago, Average Guy said:

10 years...10 years have gone by since the original in 2007. Did anyone really think this would be the Holy Grail of kits forever and LEGO  would 'honor resellers as the kit soared to $10,000'? HA! I can't believe it took LEGO this long for a remake. I sold my last one two years ago sometime  before The Force Awakens. LEGO didn't 'do it to hurt resellers'. They did it to make money. Disney  bought Lucas Arts to make money.

How old is Mickey Mouse? Nearly 90yrs old, and Disney successfully lobbies Congress to extend US copyright laws every single time Mickey's copyright is about to expire. Also Disney has publicly stated there will be a new Star Wars movie  every two years. Do you think that means new starships  and new characters every movie?  Disney will rehash and rewrite the original characters a million times for 90yrs, just like Mickey, until Han Solo's  great great great great great great-grandchildren are flying the Milennium Falcon, and LEGO will follow suit on the gravy train and rerelease the Falcon in all forms and themes. Heh...LEGO has been re-releasing Star Wars starships,  vignettes and characters many times over even before Disney bought Lucas Arts and started the turning the wheels on the bi-annual cash machine. If anyone thinks any Star Wars UCS kit  is sacred and off limits to be reproduced, then you are in for a cruel eye opener. 

 

 

Why do I feel like we have just been scolded??

[Guest TabbyBoy]

1 hour ago, stephen_rockefeller said:

Why do I feel like we have just been scolded??

I think we've been treated. I'm lucky to have got £3K for mine as soon as rumours surfaced. Finally, I can now buy one to build at long last knowing that I'll likely get my money back in a few years if I get bored of it.

Be careful when selling 10179 on eBay now that the cat is out of the bag as there's a high chance that buyers will return the set within the set period if they know that there's a newer (and maybe better) replacement on the way.

To you greedy lot who've been hoarding them for too long... tough kitty ;-)

[KShine]

This isn't about the 10179 - Most complainers here are concerned (and should be concerned) about the continued loss of faith in the perception of value, in general.

When nothing is special, nothing is special - and LEGO is just another expensive, disposable, plastic toy.

[mudcatsfan]

18 minutes ago, KShine said:

This isn't about the 10179 - Most complainers here are concerned (and should be concerned) about the continued loss of faith in the perception of value, in general.

When nothing is special, nothing is special - and LEGO is just another expensive, disposable, plastic toy.

Exactly. if the grand-daddy of them all isn't untouchable, none of them are untouchable, and meteoric prices are no longer achievable. (some would argue meteoric price increases were already extinct due to all of us doing this on a public forum, but I digress).

However, it also stands to reason they're much more likely to re-do sets that have more intrinsic popularity. The B-Wing isn't a likely re-do. So how many sets are truly impacted?

Here's how all our brick folio's are about to be impacted if this truly comes to fruition.

I wanted this Falcon set, bad. And can afford to spend 1500-2500 on a logo set. I considered it on several occasions.

That was back when I knew I was never going to get one at retail for 500-800.

Once I suspected I might (redo winter series, redo Death Star, redo Snow Speeder UCS) , I decided I was not going to pay 2500, nor 2000, nor 1500 for a really nice used copy. I was willing to wait.

Now all UCS sets have that mindset. Heck, any super desirable set is.

If you dispute the importance of the 10179 in Lego investing, well.............

 

 

[zskid00]

24 minutes ago, mudcatsfan said:

Exactly. if the grand-daddy of them all isn't untouchable, none of them are untouchable, and meteoric prices are no longer achievable. (some would argue meteoric price increases were already extinct due to all of us doing this on a public forum, but I digress).

I believe meteoric prices aren't a part of the LEGO secondary market anymore, honestly.  The 10179 was a rare opportunity that itself diminished any potential for another occurrence like it.  It was the example so many outside sources pointed to when bringing attention to the LEGO secondary market potential and no other set has reached the same heights. 

[Val-E]

So if it´s not about 10179, were WTS or DS reissues of no relevance?

WTS was the sign that it would happen to non Star Wars sets so everything is fair game now.

The people who are prepared to wait ten years for a reissue are not our target market, neither are those who choose bogus bricks.

I do agree that it harms the brand´s collectibility factor but it has been a flippers market for at least 2 years now.

[mudcatsfan]

6 minutes ago, zskid00 said:

I believe meteoric prices aren't a part of the LEGO secondary market anymore, honestly.  The 10179 was a rare opportunity that itself diminished any potential for another occurrence like it.  It was the example so many outside sources pointed to when bringing attention to the LEGO secondary market potential and no other set has reached the same heights. 

Agreed, which is why I couched it.

The thing is, having that one shining example waaaaaaay out there helps you pay $150 for a $99.99 retail set.

"Well at least I'm not paying 200 or 400. I can't afford to wait for set x to continue to appreciate till I can never afford it."

Now the first thing that happens when you consider paying well over retail for a retired set is, "Might they re-issue this? Maybe I'll just wait. I'd hate to pay $150 for this $99 set and have them reissue it in 6 months for $99 and get it on permanent 20% off sales.

 

4 minutes ago, Val-E said:

So if it´s not about 10179, were WTS or DS reissues of no relevance?

WTS was the sign that it would happen to non Star Wars sets so everything is fair game now.

The people who are prepared to wait ten years for a reissue are not our target market, neither are those who choose bogus bricks.

I do agree that it harms the brand´s collectibility factor but it has been a flippers market for at least 2 years now.

Agreed, that not everybody is waiting 10 years, but the point is, even much smaller sets are now in the, "why not just wait for it" mindset.

Let's take it down to a $25 set, and I'll give real world examples.

It's mid 2016, and I really want the Tatooine Skiff, or A-wing  but man, they went from $25 retail to $50 on amazon now that they're retired.

Do I bite now and pay $50 and avoid waiting for it to go to $99?

Well here we are in early 2017, turns out you can now get either for 20% off retail of around 24.99 plus extra discounts.

All levels of Lego (especially in SW) are subject to, why would I pay X when they'll potentially just re-release it and make me feel like I've wasted x dollars?

[Phil B]

LEGO is a toy company, who benefit from their toys being collectible, but in the end want to sell toys. Yes, they are re-releasing some "classics", but only those which they think will have immediate, broad appeal and will sell past their production targets. I doubt they will start re-releasing more obscure sets as mentioned before.

SW is hot right now, and unless LEGO has a commitment to resellers (which they don't) they would be stupid not to cash in and release a flagship set based on the flagship of the franchise.

I often get the impression many of us here think LEGO is making short-sighted decisions, but I don't think they do. They have obviously factored all aspects of their appeal (both to kids and adults) into their product development, plus they are obviously aware of their status as a collectible product, and have many examples from other brands to look at and learn from. If LEGO thinks the time is right to make another MF UCS, I bet they have data to support it will sell well (compared with their targets).

The "old" MF UCS will still have value, after all, it was the holy grail for so long, and if you collect you need that one. There might be a small bubble popping for those who bought at $2-$3k with the intent to resell, but for those who bought at retail there remains a nice amount of profit (granted, smeared out over many years) to be had.

And if anything, the next holy grail is already out there, be it Taj Mahal, Grand Caroussel (though rumors on its replacement are also swirling), Green Grocer, etc.

The thing is, the more people sour on investing in the larger sets (which is what I sense is happening right now), the more likely it is that in 5 years from now one of the currently retiring sets is the next UCS MF. Especially if TLG has to downsize their portfolio since the whole TLM surge in popularity is by now gone - some sets just won't be made again for a long time.

Net, this is not the end of the road, just another inevitable change in the marketplace. Adapt or else ....

[HandyHand]

20 minutes ago, mudcatsfan said:

Exactly. if the grand-daddy of them all isn't untouchable, none of them are untouchable, and meteoric prices are no longer achievable. (some would argue meteoric price increases were already extinct due to all of us doing this on a public forum, but I digress).

However, it also stands to reason they're much more likely to re-do sets that have more intrinsic popularity. The B-Wing isn't a likely re-do. So how many sets are truly impacted?

Here's how all our brick folio's are about to be impacted if this truly comes to fruition.

I wanted this Falcon set, bad. And can afford to spend 1500-2500 on a logo set. I considered it on several occasions.

That was back when I knew I was never going to get one at retail for 500-800.

Once I suspected I might (redo winter series, redo Death Star, redo Snow Speeder UCS) , I decided I was not going to pay 2500, nor 2000, nor 1500 for a really nice used copy. I was willing to wait.

Now all UCS sets have that mindset. Heck, any super desirable set is.

If you dispute the importance of the 10179 in Lego investing, well.............

What people should keep in mind is that ... 10 years ago, bogus bricks (and other similar Chinese knock-off brands) did not exist!  LEGO could afford to retire an exclusive set and not respond to the MISB unopened boxes creeping up in value on the aftermarket. They already earned money on the original sale, and TLG could focus on developing new sets. The high profile collectable sets were even a blessing for LEGO because it gave the brand a label of quality and desirability!

But ... With Chinese knock off brands now copying and cloning original LEGO designs and making good money on that, they had to do something... These clones, simply by existing and putting out clones of retired sets, are both diminishing the exclusivity of those LEGO sets, and making people (the average buyer) see original LEGO sets as overpriced. 

Releasing a remake of a highly desirable older set hits two targets with one stone: it destroys the demand for (poor quality) clone versions of the original set, and it lets TLG get in on the apparent demand for the remade set.

[Darth_Raichu]

19 minutes ago, Phil B said:

LEGO is a toy company, who benefit from their toys being collectible, but in the end want to sell toys. Yes, they are re-releasing some "classics", but only those which they think will have immediate, broad appeal and will sell past their production targets. I doubt they will start re-releasing more obscure sets as mentioned before.

SW is hot right now, and unless LEGO has a commitment to resellers (which they don't) they would be stupid not to cash in and release a flagship set based on the flagship of the franchise.

I often get the impression many of us here think LEGO is making short-sighted decisions, but I don't think they do. They have obviously factored all aspects of their appeal (both to kids and adults) into their product development, plus they are obviously aware of their status as a collectible product, and have many examples from other brands to look at and learn from. If LEGO thinks the time is right to make another MF UCS, I bet they have data to support it will sell well (compared with their targets).

That is a huge benefit, IMHO, setting LEGO apart from Mega Bloks or various other toys under Mattel brand. It seems like LEGO is ok with letting go that benefit to become just another toy company.  Sacrificing collectible aspect that was cultivated after a long period in favor of immediate profit is the definition of short term.  There is no way around that.

18 minutes ago, Phil B said:

Net, this is not the end of the road, just another inevitable change in the marketplace. Adapt or else ....

Agreed.

15 minutes ago, Haay said:

But ... With Chinese knock off brands now copying and cloning original LEGO designs and making good money on that, they had to do something... These clones, simply by existing and putting out clones of retired sets, are both diminishing the exclusivity of those LEGO sets, and making people (the average buyer) see original LEGO sets as overpriced. 

LEGO dug their own hole by increasing their price per brick across the board in 2016

[brickzoor]

Were people this whiny when 10240 was released?  I don't think the BP tool shows historical data, what was the high on 7191? You'll see a drop in prices but still make plenty on the set if you still have one and decide to sell. 

[Jeff Mack]

18 minutes ago, brickzoor said:

Were people this whiny when 10240 was released?  I don't think the BP tool shows historical data, what was the high on 7191? You'll see a drop in prices but still make plenty on the set if you still have one and decide to sell. 

I just went through and cleaned up some of the data for this set.  Overall I don't think it was affected all that much.  

[Val-E]

18 minutes ago, brickzoor said:

Were people this whiny when 10240 was released?  I don't think the BP tool shows historical data, what was the high on 7191? You'll see a drop in prices but still make plenty on the set if you still have one and decide to sell. 

@TabbyBoy is already whiny about that set and it hasn´t been remade!

Proof that you don´t need to wait for a remake or rumour of one for the same set for market values to fall.

[Guest TabbyBoy]

Just now, Val-E said:

@TabbyBoy is already whiny about that set and it hasn´t been remade!

Proof that you don´t need to wait for a remake or rumour of one for the same set for market values to fall.

Anybody would whine about a set that soon went close to 2x RRP and then tanked back to RRP ;-) That's nothing compared to what 10179 owners will be doing in October when the new MF comes out. It may be worth buying shares in Kleenex as there's a lot of tears on the horizon!

To be honest, there's been an overall decline in the market for a while and a huge drop in demand for most sets. Buyers are now more savvy and rarely pay over the odds for anything if they can avoid it. It tough out there now, which could be why retailers are offering crazy deals.

Then: buyers > sellers.

Now: buyers < sellers.