75192 - UCS: Millennium Falcon 2017

[KShine]

25 minutes ago, inversion said:

So what? For your business, and we know that. Not so much for LEGO's. Investing always carries risk. If you invested into oil companies 1.5 years ago you had it bad. Then US shale formations are bad for business? Yes, for some. There are always losers and without losers there are no winners. Pick the sets then that are unlikely to get a remake. There are remakes of some sets, and most don't have any. 

For our business of reselling (not just mine). We are not an internal LEGO company website, so I think it is pretty much understood. I don't hold sets forever, so for me personally it isn't that bad (other than the perceived limitation of future valuations of sets in general). Of course there are always winners and losers, but the negative trend should not be ignored, or excused away.

[KShine]

46 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

Regardless of whatever is released and their effects on older sets...The remakes suck in my opinion.  There are so many other options for UCS sets, yet they choose to remake iconic sets.  I really could care less about another Snowspeeder or Falcon.  Been there...done that.  

Correct, I remember when we all assumed that the UCS sets were special, and that they weren't ever meant to be remade - it just wouldn't happen.

Then we were all like "But LEGO said that it was the Ultimate Edition, and now we find out that it was the crappy edition" 

Edited December 21, 2015 by KShine

[bricketycricket]

I don't think remakes are that bad for business when done in moderation. If they re-release popular UCS ships around a decade or more after the previous one, it gives you plenty of opportunity to sell before the new one comes out. And if they don't ever re-release anything, then you'll just have new UCS sets like the B-wing and Obi Wan's Starfighter that nobody wants and that's not good for business either.

I do think it's too soon for a UCS Falcon remake though, if there's any truth to this rumor.

[Loghamel]

44 minutes ago, bricketycricket said:

I don't think remakes are that bad for business when done in moderation. If they re-release popular UCS ships around a decade or more after the previous one, it gives you plenty of opportunity to sell before the new one comes out. And if they don't ever re-release anything, then you'll just have new UCS sets like the B-wing and Obi Wan's Starfighter that nobody wants and that's not good for business either.

I do think it's too soon for a UCS Falcon remake though, if there's any truth to this rumor.

I just don't get this kind of reasoning and, believe me, it's not just you.  This is the number one response I see to these rumors.  But 10 years is too soon?  People who bought this for their teenagers can now buy it for their grandkids.  I believe 10 years is more than enough time for anyone to sell if that was their initial goal.

[Ed Mack]

I don't think remakes are that bad for business when done in moderation. If they re-release popular UCS ships around a decade or more after the previous one, it gives you plenty of opportunity to sell before the new one comes out. And if they don't ever re-release anything, then you'll just have new UCS sets like the B-wing and Obi Wan's Starfighter that nobody wants and that's not good for business either.

I do think it's too soon for a UCS Falcon remake though, if there's any truth to this rumor.

Whatever LEGO sets that don't get a remake might become the new iconic sets. I think the B-Wing just became a whole lot more valuable. Good thing I have 15 of them. LOL

[Alpinemaps]

Regardless of whatever is released and their effects on older sets...The remakes suck in my opinion.  There are so many other options for UCS sets, yet they choose to remake iconic sets.  I really could care less about another Snowspeeder or Falcon.  Been there...done that.  

But how do we know this is LEGO's decision? I honestly believe that Lucasfilm and Disney drive the tie-in machine. I would think they are the ones going to LEGO saying "it's time to do this."

I think we give LEGO too much credit/blame for the decisions on what sets are available, especially as it relates to SW.

I think about Hasbro or any of the other licensees and I don't believe for a second that Lucasfilm isn't directing them to do make what they want out there.

[Average Guy]

Disney paid 4  BILLION dollars for this franchise. You had better believe they will be making more toys, authorized Lego sets included, than there ever before for this franchise , if not just to pay the bills alone. You can expect more remakes from Lego.

Now that the Star Wars franchise has been rebooted, the fans are hungry again. Do you really think Lego wants buyers paying $4-5k to resellers when they can reboot that same kit again for $500? Lego is losing roughly $4k in sales every time a buyer buys a 10179.  The buyer will spend his $4k in Lego kits , the question is who will he give it to? The Lego corporation or a reseller? Lego can easily get that market share back with a reboot of 10179.

[Average Guy]

2 hours ago, Veegs said:

Says the guy with every Lego set ever made

I wish TLG would let people vote on what they'd like to see get the SW UCS treatment. That would be interesting...

Lego has let fans vote for kits before. Historically those kits have not been a success for Lego. Example: Home One.

[Mos_Eisley]

6 minutes ago, Average Guy said:

Lego has let fans vote for kits before. Historically those kits have not been a success for Lego. Example: Home One.

To be fair, I don't believe there were pictures of what any of the sets would be when that vote took place.  The description might have sounded good, but if they make a crappy version of that description, that isn't the voters' fault. Regardless, I didn't vote for a Home One. I think a Jedi Council type set was one of the options and that got my vote. 

[Average Guy]

7 minutes ago, Mos_Eisley said:

To be fair, I don't believe there were pictures of what any of the sets would be when that vote took place.  The description might have sounded good, but if they make a crappy version of that description, that isn't the voters' fault. Regardless, I didn't vote for a Home One. I think a Jedi Council type set was one of the options and that got my vote. 

I think you are correct. I can't remember any kit for vote by fans that Lego gave pictures for proposed kits. I also can not remember any kit that won by popular vote that was a success for Lego.

[Veegs]

9 minutes ago, Mos_Eisley said:

To be fair, I don't believe there were pictures of what any of the sets would be when that vote took place.  The description might have sounded good, but if they make a crappy version of that description, that isn't the voters' fault. Regardless, I didn't vote for a Home One. I think a Jedi Council type set was one of the options and that got my vote. 

True. Home One looked nothing like I thought it would/should/could have looked like. If we could vote on them with at least rough concepts to see, I think people would be more inclined to buy what was votes as most popular.

[Average Guy]

10 minutes ago, Average Guy said:

I think you are correct. I can't remember any kit for vote by fans that Lego gave pictures for proposed kits. I also can not remember any kit that won by popular vote that was a success for Lego.

Wait! I forgot about Lego Ideas and Cusso. Those have been a success and they were voted by fans. I think they are a success because as you pointed out Mos_Eisley, they were visible models before the voters choose. I guess we should all get busy building a kit for review on Lego Ideas. lol 

[Miami Bomb Squad]

I think the Original will always remain "The" original and will be the ones the collectors will want. 
I would rather pay $5000 for the real deal than the $500 remake. 
This holds true for many collectables,  Its like Topps remaking the 1952 Mantle,  Kenner remaking the 12 back,  remakes of Evil Knevil, Steve Austin, Cast iron Banks, Japanese Tin Robots etc.......
Doesn't matter, the true collector will want the original no matter the price tag.  Actually, the higher the better.
So, If you have the 10179, keep it, I'm pretty sure it will reach $10k with or without the remake.

 

[Average Guy]

6 minutes ago, Miami Bomb Squad said:

I think the Original will always remain "The" original and will be the ones the collectors will want. 
I would rather pay $5000 for the real deal than the $500 remake. 
This holds true for many collectables,  Its like Topps remaking the 1952 Mantle,  Kenner remaking the 12 back,  remakes of Evil Knevil, Steve Austin, Cast iron Banks, Japanese Tin Robots etc.......
Doesn't matter, the true collector will want the original no matter the price tag.  Actually, the higher the better.
So, If you have the 10179, keep it, I'm pretty sure it will reach $10k with or without the remake.

 

I think $5k will pay a lot of bills or buy a mediocre car. lol There are a lot of people who would buy a remake rather than fork over $5k for the original. If I had any left I would sell. I sold my last copy last year for $3k in cash because I was afraid of not enough buyers would pay higher, the chance of getting a claim filed for fraud with Paypal/Ebay, and the remake of new Star Wars means a possible remake. A remake which I now believe will happen.

[redghostx]

14 minutes ago, Miami Bomb Squad said:

I think the Original will always remain "The" original and will be the ones the collectors will want. 
I would rather pay $5000 for the real deal than the $500 remake. 
This holds true for many collectables,  Its like Topps remaking the 1952 Mantle,  Kenner remaking the 12 back,  remakes of Evil Knevil, Steve Austin, Cast iron Banks, Japanese Tin Robots etc.......
Doesn't matter, the true collector will want the original no matter the price tag.  Actually, the higher the better.
So, If you have the 10179, keep it, I'm pretty sure it will reach $10k with or without the remake.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Average Guy said:

I think $5k will pay a lot of bills or buy a mediocre car. lol There are a lot of people who would buy a remake rather than fork over $5k for the original. If I had any left I would sell. I sold my last copy last year for $3k in cash because I was afraid of not enough buyers would pay higher, the chance of getting a claim filed for fraud with Paypal/Ebay, and the remake of new Star Wars means a possible remake. A remake which I now believe will happen.

You're both right.

 

There are a lot of people that would rather buy a remake that the original and there are a LOT of people that want the original. 

[Miami Bomb Squad]

9 minutes ago, Average Guy said:

I think $5k will pay a lot of bills or buy a mediocre car. lol There are a lot of people who would buy a remake rather than fork over $5k for the original.

That because your an Average Guy.

[Ed Mack]

People paying $5000 for a LEGO set will still buy whatever set they want. It will not affect their buying decisions one iota. The 10179 is a status symbol. There is history there. A new one will have no such history....just a lot of people stockpiling it.

[Average Guy]

17 minutes ago, Miami Bomb Squad said:

That because your an Average Guy.

that's also why I sold my last copy for $3k. It was an average price lol

[KShine]

12 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

People paying $5000 for a LEGO set will still buy whatever set they want. It will not affect their buying decisions one iota. The 10179 is a status symbol. There is history there. A new one will have no such history....just a lot of people stockpiling it.

So you really believe that if LEGO pulled a Winter Toy Shop on the 10179, it wouldn't make a difference?

[Average Guy]

17 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

People paying $5000 for a LEGO set will still buy whatever set they want. It will not affect their buying decisions one iota. The 10179 is a status symbol. There is history there. A new one will have no such history....just a lot of people stockpiling it.

you may be right there. I just looked at the sold prices for sealed 7191 UCS X-Wings and they haven't gone down despite the release of Red 5.  As a fan it doesn't matter to me whether a model is the original or a re-release as long as I got the model I wanted.  I look at it like they are plastic bricks and can be designed into any form imagined.  I don't need the older original version.  I do understand there are collectors who might want the original or as you said, as a status symbol.

[Ed Mack]

People paying $5000 for a LEGO set will still buy whatever set they want. It will not affect their buying decisions one iota. The 10179 is a status symbol. There is history there. A new one will have no such history....just a lot of people stockpiling it.

So you really believe that if LEGO pulled a Winter Toy Shop on the 10179, it wouldn't make a difference?

It could never be a STAR WARS 30th Anniversary set. Maybe a STAR WARS 40th Anniversary set if it's released in 2017, but if that's the case, anal collectors like myself will want both copies....and the 50th Anniversary as well. The 10179 is unique in many ways and cannot be replicated exactly. It's just like a Corvette. The Anniversary editions are worth more and appreciate faster.

[Alpinemaps]

I've got to agree.

If someone wants a UCS MF, and doesn't want to pay $3000 for it, then remake or not, that won't change.

10179 is in rarified air, where someone that is going to pay the money it commands knows what it is, and isn't going to accept a remake as a replacement. A remake will just be another UCS MF to add to their collection.

I'd happily pick up a new UCS MF, but no way in hell can I justify buying a 10179. Not unless I win the lottery.

[asharerin]

From eurobricks in Dec 2014:

Posted 30 December 2014 - 11:45 PM

"Okay, update on the rumored 10179 rerelease.

I spoke with the informant over the phone today about whether there was going to be an updated 10179. My bud was at the toy fair in NYC and supposedly they had a private behind closed doors event for dealers that showcased a few products we haven't seen yet. There was a falcon on display that was different than 10179 that had lights and new features.

However, according to my informant, this isn't the new UCS. They aren't remaking 10179. Period. Economically, lego felt it wouldn't work well with their intended market (children) and the price point would have made hard core adult collectors cringe."

 

Don't know if this was the set that cavegod was referring to as having been seen in person (would not surprise me).

 

For me the most interesting thing was that cavegod referred to the Snowspeeder, Hoth Base, Falcon and Death Star (not Starkiller).

 

 

[dcdfan]

I think like Ed Mack said 2017 (40th anniversary) makes sense, if at all...

[chipbee]

5 hours ago, hendrikdejager said:

Lego remaking UCS sets is very bad for the business we are all in...

Amongst the exclusives, there are already 3 Death Stars, 2 sandcrawler and 2 X-wings, so a 2nd MF UCS is long overdue. The safest UCS sets are the less popular ones like B-Wing, Tantive, Yoda and Darth Maul.

With Disney owning Star Wars, you can bet the farm that there will be large exclusives X-wings, TIE Fighter, ISD, MF  etc. for decades to come. Is this bad or good? I think the jury is still out. Personally I think it can't be bad as newer UCS will draw in new fans of lego large exclusive sets. The negative effect will be a cap on skyhigh prices like 10179, but it will help many sets double or triple in value.