75192 - UCS: Millennium Falcon 2017

[Follows Closely]

^ Your con is "we will not be able to meet the supply"?

^ Your con is "we will not be able to meet the supply"?

[gbg108]

12 minutes ago, Follows Closely said:

^ Your con is "we will not be able to meet the supply"?

^ Your con is "we will not be able to meet the supply"?

First world problems

[redcell]

If TLG remakes a new UCS Falcon, I will inevitably buy some, but there is no way that it will be the kind of hit that 10179 was.  Those will be stockpiled to the high heavens by every Tom, **** and Harry who has any clue of how 10179 performed after it retired, which will inevitably constrain the post-eol price appreciation of the set.    

[inversion]

1 hour ago, Huskers1236 said:

Cavegod has had credible information in the past, and is the creator of the massive UCS AT-AT that everybody goes crazy about.  I think he generally has the goods, just doesn't put it out there like just2good does. Is it possible that he saw a prototype UCS that never makes it to market?  Sure, but Lego knows they'd be leaving millions on the table if that were to happen.  It's a matter of if, not when, there will be another UCS MF.  Lego knows that AFOLs will shell out $350 for a freaking red box with a GB name slapped on it, they sure as hell know that they'll shell out $500 for the baddest set known to mankind.

10179 was a bad seller and was long on shelves after retiring. Just saying. Not sure about commercial profitability.

I can see a UCS Falcon coming some time that is similar to the new Sandcrawler in concept. Play features and lots of minifigs, nice interior, larger than the current TFA one but smaller than 10179. That would sell like hotcakes. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by inversion

[torville1976]

On 21/12/2015 at 9:44 PM, hendrikdejager said:

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

Where the Millenium Falcon is concerned, it's only bad for business if it is significantly better and makes the 10179 less desirable. For me, the 10179 will never lose it's money as it is a classic and it has something on any subsequent Falcons; time. It was the first of it's type and nothing can ever take that away.

I never got a chance to own any of the first round of UCS Falcons when they were on sale and unless I dig very deep right now, I still won't. This news really excites me.

The truth is that there are so many people out there like me, who don't own one. To make a new UCS version is a very prudent move from a Lego standpoint.

That and the fact that all the hardcore SW builders will empty their wallets!

Win Win scenario I think!

 

 

[TargetZero]

on the reverse I do think it will boost demand, people will start collecting them more just because of this, so other sets will have more demand

[Huskers1236]

1 hour ago, inversion said:

10179 was a bad seller and was long on shelves after retiring. Just saying. Not sure about commercial profitability.

I can see a UCS Falcon coming some time that is similar to the new Sandcrawler in concept. Play features and lots of minifigs, nice interior, larger than the current TFA one but smaller than 10179. That would sell like hotcakes. 

Different market now.  Everyone and their mom will want to tuck them away now with the proliferation of new investors due to the media and overall awareness of the brand.   I'm not saying it will be a super home run investment wise simply because of this fact.  As far as how it's built, I hope it's essentially the same as 10179, but that's just me as I don't have 10179's that I'm bleeding every cent out of. 

[Darth_Raichu]

7 minutes ago, Huskers1236 said:

Different market now.  Everyone and their mom will want to tuck them away now with the proliferation of new investors due to the media and overall awareness of the brand.   I'm not saying it will be a super home run investment wise simply because of this fact.  As far as how it's built, I hope it's essentially the same as 10179, but that's just me as I don't have 10179's that I'm bleeding every cent out of. 

If I was LEGO, all of the conditions are ripe for remaking UCS MF. Seriously, what kind of negative business impacts will LEGO sustain by remaking UCS MF? I could not think of any.

[Huskers1236]

16 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

If I was LEGO, all of the conditions are ripe for remaking UCS MF. Seriously, what kind of negative business impacts will LEGO sustain by remaking UCS MF? I could not think of any.

Exactly, strike while the iron is hot, and it's blazing right now.  The ship is prominent in the new movies just as it was in the OT, lending it to be popular to multiple demographics.  It will also continue to be prominent in at least a couple more movies for sure in EpVIII and IX and possible in the stand alone movie if the Han Solo movie comes about. 

There will be those that are mad that a remake comes out, but the only ones saying it will be those holding 10179.  There will be some backlash that other sets haven't been done yet like AT-AT.  I don't blame them either, just saying that the negative vibes will be coming from a select few.  The rest of the world that does not have 10179 will be jumping for joy.  If they don't like the price they have plenty of smaller options to buy the Falcon. 

[Guest TabbyBoy]

I wonder if that could be why set number 70179 isn't used yet? I did have a MISB 10179 that I sold near the peak and I'm now glad I did. I think it's too big a risk holding onto 10179 for too long, it could so easily tank if the new model is far better and not much more expensive (say, £399.99?). If someone wants a "Bricklinked" 10179, there's 2 in Watchet Marina store for £900 each.

[Crustybeaver]

I can see it now, a new UCS Falcon hits the market sparking hundreds of articles comparing it to 10179, strike it rich, better than gold. It'll be the death of Lego investing as we know it.

[inversion]

10 minutes ago, Crustybeaver said:

I can see it now, a new UCS Falcon hits the market sparking hundreds of articles comparing it to 10179, strike it rich, better than gold. It'll be the death of Lego investing as we know it.

No, it would just weed out the idiots. If end-user demand does not change investment should be still okay. Except some demand generated buy investor-to-investor sales.

[diablo2112]

12 minutes ago, Crustybeaver said:

I can see it now, a new UCS Falcon hits the market sparking hundreds of articles comparing it to 10179, strike it rich, better than gold. It'll be the death of Lego investing as we know it.

Actually, it would be the death of new Lego investors.  Here's the thing.  If you have an inventory of retired sets (or near-retired that Lego isn't producing anymore), the supply side of the equation is now fixed.  New investors = new demand.  That will only help those of us already in the game with inventory of retired sets.  Now, this new demand could very well spark Lego to extend and increase production runs, with more of this production held by investors for later resale.  That isn't good for new sets, like you indicate.  We each make our own decisions.  Mine is to hold current inventory from 2014/2015 acquisition, and see how demand develops as these move into the post-EOL phase.  I'm highly selective about acquiring any new inventory at this point, for the reasons outlined above.  If they remake 10179, I'll buy a set for personal build, though.

[inversion]

14 minutes ago, diablo2112 said:

Actually, it would be the death of new Lego investors.  Here's the thing.  If you have an inventory of retired sets (or near-retired that Lego isn't producing anymore), the supply side of the equation is now fixed.  New investors = new demand.  That will only help those of us already in the game with inventory of retired sets.  Now, this new demand could very well spark Lego to extend and increase production runs, with more of this production held by investors for later resale.  That isn't good for new sets, like you indicate.  We each make our own decisions.  Mine is to hold current inventory from 2014/2015 acquisition, and see how demand develops as these move into the post-EOL phase.  I'm highly selective about acquiring any new inventory at this point, for the reasons outlined above.  If they remake 10179, I'll buy a set for personal build, though.

New investors = new demand, this is not right. They buy to sell. Demand should be considered only as end-user sales. They are the retail stores who buy from wholesale, if you look it that way.

[diablo2112]

8 minutes ago, inversion said:

New investors = new demand, this is not right. They buy to sell. Demand should be considered only as end-user sales. They are the retail stores who buy from wholesale, if you look it that way.

Actually, new investors generate their own demand as they build inventory.   Yes, they intend to later resell.  But in the meantime, some fraction of those new investors also look to add retired sets to their inventory, in anticipation of future growth.   For example, I entered this game after the retirement of the first 3 modulars.  None-the-less, I acquired several examples of CC, MS, and GG in anticipation of future growth (which occurred very nicely, my best all-time profits have been from CC sales).  As a new investor 2 years ago, I generated new demand for those retired sets.  If we see another spurt in Lego investing, we'll see this repeat for a select few sets (UCS and modulars, among others).

[bricketycricket]

4 hours ago, Darth_Raichu said:

If I was LEGO, all of the conditions are ripe for remaking UCS MF. Seriously, what kind of negative business impacts will LEGO sustain by remaking UCS MF? I could not think of any.

Well if they do too many remakes, the sets don't maintain their value as well and people start to think twice about spending hundreds of dollars on plastic bricks and then primary sales potentially begin to drop off.

[inversion]

50 minutes ago, diablo2112 said:

Actually, new investors generate their own demand as they build inventory.   Yes, they intend to later resell.  But in the meantime, some fraction of those new investors also look to add retired sets to their inventory, in anticipation of future growth.   For example, I entered this game after the retirement of the first 3 modulars.  None-the-less, I acquired several examples of CC, MS, and GG in anticipation of future growth (which occurred very nicely, my best all-time profits have been from CC sales).  As a new investor 2 years ago, I generated new demand for those retired sets.  If we see another spurt in Lego investing, we'll see this repeat for a select few sets (UCS and modulars, among others).

You don't quite get me. You invest because you expect to sell later and did not generate actual consumer demand which you need to sell sets later. It is like a Ponzi scheme, investors can't hand sets down to each other indefinitely. With the exception of a few sets that have high prestige value therefore people don't expect to open them, like 10179 or Taj Mahal. But those are done, and we are speaking about new releases.

[Darth_Raichu]

43 minutes ago, bricketycricket said:

Well if they do too many remakes, the sets don't maintain their value as well and people start to think twice about spending hundreds of dollars on plastic bricks and then primary sales potentially begin to drop off.

They already did multiple remakes in SW lines, UCS or otherwise.  They surely have some data on the affect of remakes AND new SW movies to sales.  I will venture a guess the affect of remakes to LEGO is not as bad as some people think.   If it is that bad, LEGO would have stop remaking sets a long time ago

[Follows Closely]

This is what I would like to see. Even better if a full interior could be realized. But this will never happen as the price would approach $1,000.

[Val-E]

32 minutes ago, inversion said:

You don't quite get me. You invest because you expect to sell later and did not generate actual consumer demand which you need to sell sets later. It is like a Ponzi scheme, investors can't hand sets down to each other indefinitely. With the exception of a few sets that have high prestige value therefore people don't expect to open them, like 10179 or Taj Mahal. But those are done, and we are speaking about new releases.

Totally agree. Too many Town Halls out there were being passed from Peter to Paul without being opened so the net result is the same number of MISB sets on the market which the real buying market is not yet able to absorb.

[bricketycricket]

4 hours ago, Darth_Raichu said:

They already did multiple remakes in SW lines, UCS or otherwise.  They surely have some data on the affect of remakes AND new SW movies to sales.  I will venture a guess the affect of remakes to LEGO is not as bad as some people think.   If it is that bad, LEGO would have stop remaking sets a long time ago

They have done remakes, but they have done them sparingly. Usually after a long period of time has passed as well. (Over a decade for the UCS Xwing and rumored UCS snowspeeder remake, a bit less than a decade for the Sandcrawler) And in many cases, they updated models with new building techniques and minifigs to reflect the display quality that fans have come to expect nowadays.

If they remake too often, and without any meaningful improvements (a la Winter Village Toy Shop) that will absolutely bring down secondary market prices. 10179 is the premier example of Lego's collectibility and remaking it so soon (it's only been gone, what, 5 or 6 years now?) is damaging to the perceived value of Lego as long term investment, to some degree.

I do think they'll remake it at some point, because they could charge a fortune for it and still sell tons of them. Remakes are inevitable but they should be very careful about how they do it and how often they do it.

[Darth_Raichu]

1 hour ago, bricketycricket said:

They have done remakes, but they have done them sparingly. Usually after a long period of time has passed as well. (Over a decade for the UCS Xwing and rumored UCS snowspeeder remake, a bit less than a decade for the Sandcrawler) And in many cases, they updated models with new building techniques and minifigs to reflect the display quality that fans have come to expect nowadays.

If they remake too often, and without any meaningful improvements (a la Winter Village Toy Shop) that will absolutely bring down secondary market prices. 10179 is the premier example of Lego's collectibility and remaking it so soon (it's only been gone, what, 5 or 6 years now?) is damaging to the perceived value of Lego as long term investment, to some degree.

I do think they'll remake it at some point, because they could charge a fortune for it and still sell tons of them. Remakes are inevitable but they should be very careful about how they do it and how often they do it.

I think a lot of us put too much weight on how much LEGO actually care about maintaining a healthy secondary market.  If there is as much demand for the older stuffs as some people believe, LEGO would be foolish not to at least try to capitalized.    

[exciter1]

 

This could very well be a functioning play set. Will people spend $600 on a functioning play set? If so, 10179 owners will be schwinging.

[steveviscious89]

On 1/11/2016 at 4:50 PM, Follows Closely said:

This is what I would like to see. Even better if a full interior could be realized. But this will never happen as the price would approach $1,000.

So? Go big or go home I say. If they make another one I'd put down a grand. Why? Because it would pretty much be the end all be all lego set. For a collector, 1000 dollars is pocket change for a guaranteed legendary model.

[stephen_rockefeller]

1000 msrp for a lego set?. Not ever, sorry you will have spend your  "pocket change" on something else I'm afraid.