10256 - Taj Mahal (2017)

[jaisonline]

OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE

10256 Taj Mahal

Ages 16+. 5,923 pieces.
US $369.99 – CA $449.99 – DE 329.99€ – UK £299.99 – DK 2699.00 DKK

Discover the architectural wonder of the Taj Mahal!

Build and discover the Taj Mahal! The huge ivory-white marble mausoleum, renowned as one of the world’s architectural wonders, was commissioned in 1631 by the Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife, the Empress Mumtaz Mahal. This relaunched 2008 LEGO® Creator Expert interpretation features the structure’s 4 facades with sweeping arches, balconies and arched windows. The central dome, subsidiary domed chambers and surrounding minarets are topped with decorative finials, and the raised platform is lined with recessed arches. The model is finished with ornate detailing throughout and intricate tilework around the base. With more than 5,900 pieces, this set is designed to deliver a rewarding building experience and makes a great display piece for the home or office.

• LEGO® interpretation of the real-world architectural wonder, the Taj Mahal.
• Relaunched 2008 model, featuring 4 facades with arches and arched windows; central dome, 4 subsidiary domed chambers and 4 minarets, all topped with decorative finials; raised platform lined with recessed arches; ornate detailing throughout; and intricate tilework around the base.
• Divides into 7 modular sections for easier transportation.
• Put your LEGO® building skills to the test with one of the largest LEGO models ever created
• Special elements include 6 blue 16×32 baseplates, white 1x5x4 bricks with bow, lots of transparent elements, ‘Erling’ bricks and ‘jumper’ plates.
• Measures over 16” (43cm) high, 20” (51cm) wide and 20” (51cm) deep.

 

 

[Ed Mack]

5 hours ago, KShine said:

You can always hire me to stand around warning your customers of the doom & gloom that awaits them (if they fail to keep their cars clean & well maintained).

I need someone to sell my new "Unlimited Monthly Wash Passes."   On a side note, nobody will lose their job.  I have a heart.

[waddamon]

Agree, its a pile of plastic that Lego completely takes advantage of and charges through the nose for.  The lego high prices are only justified because people believe they are collectible.  I sure as Heck won't pay 400 or 800 for a pile of plastic, if I can't get out of it one day.  Collectibility creates demand, art, comics, cards, stamps.  Lego is shooting both their feet off.  The downward spiral for them will continue.  Oh well, big companies always miss it.  Greed ultimately loses, in this case holding falcon or taj for 10 years was one too long.  I'm ramping up my selling.

[cubfan78]

10 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

Pretty much the truth.  Many who complain about the high prices resellers sell sets for will complain about the high prices of the current sets as well and will never buy them anyway.  What I get a kick from is when people say, "Oh, I really don't care if LEGO sets appreciate.  They are meant to be built and played with.  They are just toys after all."  Sure, we all love to build LEGO sets, but if you say you don't care about money or the fact that LEGO sets did appreciate and that your collection was worth more used than new, than you are full of it.  Everybody cares about money and the fact that LEGO sets are collectible was a wonderful perk in addition to the fun factor.

 

I agree, I am not an investor at all but I have a few retired sets that are still NIB that I have decided not to build, however, I am hoping to use them in trade for a set that I do want to build.  So yes, no matter what, appreciation of sets does matter on some level for everyone. 

[BrickLegacy]

I guess it's finally time to sell my Yellow Castle. Not taking any chances.

[Ed Mack]

Just now, waddamon said:

Agree, its a pile of plastic that Lego completely takes advantage of and charges through the nose for.  The lego high prices are only justified because people believe they are collectible.  I sure as Heck won't pay 400 or 800 for a pile of plastic, if I can't get out of it one day.  Collectibility creates demand, art, comics, cards, stamps.  Lego is shooting both their feet off.  The downward spiral for them will continue.  Oh well, big companies always miss it.  Greed ultimately loses, in this case holding falcon or taj for 10 years was one too long.  I'm ramping up my selling.

I agree.  I have to wonder how much The LEGO Group's "non-brick"  productions (movies, games, etc...) pumped up their bottom line over the past few years and enabled them to become the top toy company in the world from non-toy items.  Maybe the brick business is weaker than we all think.

[Ed Mack]

3 minutes ago, BrickLegacy said:

I guess it's finally time to sell my Yellow Castle. Not taking any chances.

If you have the original box and bricks, that set will always be worth something.  It's friggn'  40 years old!

[gregpj]

8 minutes ago, waddamon said:

in this case holding falcon or taj for 10 years was one too long.

I honestly have no sympathy for those who hold 10 years hoping the values keeps going up... at some point if your end goal is to make money, you should sell. We all know people made piles of money reselling these things. If you're a hoarder, then you probably don't care because you have the original and not the re-release!

I do however have sympathy for all those people who have shelled out big time cash in the last 6 months while LEGO made the decision to release the Taj Mahal. I'd be seriously pissed at LEGO and this would make me reconsider collecting these AFOL targeted sets. And I'm not talking about a $70 Toy Shop aimed at families... these bigs sets are aimed at collectors and this was an unintended shot over the bow against the 'collectibility' of large sets.

Totally agree that greed is driving these short sighted decisions. Well, either that or they're just stupid which is always possible.

[tawsauce]

5 minutes ago, gregpj said:

I honestly have no sympathy for those who hold 10 years hoping the values keeps going up... at some point if your end goal is to make money, you should sell. We all know people made piles of money reselling these things. If you're a hoarder, then you probably don't care because you have the original and not the re-release!

I do however have sympathy for all those people who have shelled out big time cash in the last 6 months while LEGO made the decision to release the Taj Mahal. I'd be seriously pissed at LEGO and this would make me reconsider collecting these AFOL targeted sets. And I'm not talking about a $70 Toy Shop aimed at families... these bigs sets are aimed at collectors and this was an unintended shot over the bow against the 'collectibility' of large sets.

Totally agree that greed is driving these short sighted decisions. Well, either that or they're just stupid which is always possible.

Totally agree with this. I have no sympathy either for those who held on to this for a number of years just wanting the price to go up and up. How long do you really expect it to go on like that? Same thing with the UCS Falcon, no sympathy. I'm excited for these remakes. Gives me a chance to build it. 

As far as investing in Taj Mahal after it retired and then smoldered for a couple years in retirement, that is risky. Personally not one I would risk. To much money and faith involved in a box.

[cubfan78]

6 minutes ago, gregpj said:

I honestly have no sympathy for those who hold 10 years hoping the values keeps going up... at some point if your end goal is to make money, you should sell. We all know people made piles of money reselling these things. If you're a hoarder, then you probably don't care because you have the original and not the re-release!

I do however have sympathy for all those people who have shelled out big time cash in the last 6 months while LEGO made the decision to release the Taj Mahal. I'd be seriously pissed at LEGO and this would make me reconsider collecting these AFOL targeted sets. And I'm not talking about a $70 Toy Shop aimed at families... these bigs sets are aimed at collectors and this was an unintended shot over the bow against the 'collectibility' of large sets.

Totally agree that greed is driving these short sighted decisions. Well, either that or they're just stupid which is always possible.

 

While I agree that this does hurt the future of Lego collectibility, you have to try and look at it from Lego's perspective. This is a company that saw a significant enough decline in sales revenue that they had to layoff 1400 employees. They have to "right the ship" somehow, part of this process could be releasing retired sets. I know that a remake was probably in the works long before the earnings report came out but I would not be surprised if a bunch of these remakes is part of a contingency strategy that TLG created a few years ago in the event of declining sales. 

[cubfan78]

10 minutes ago, tawsauce said:

Totally agree with this. I have no sympathy either for those who held on to this for a number of years just wanting the price to go up and up. How long do you really expect it to go on like that? Same thing with the UCS Falcon, no sympathy. I'm excited for these remakes. Gives me a chance to build it. 

As far as investing in Taj Mahal after it retired and then smoldered for a couple years in retirement, that is risky. Personally not one I would risk. To much money and faith involved in a box.

 

"Bulls make money. Bears make money. Pigs? They get slaughtered." Gordon Gekko 

[gregpj]

8 minutes ago, cubfan78 said:

While I agree that this does hurt the future of Lego collectibility, you have to try and look at it from Lego's perspective. This is a company that saw a significant enough decline in sales revenue that they had to layoff 1400 employees. They have to "right the ship" somehow, part of this process could be releasing retired sets. I know that a remake was probably in the works long before the earnings report came out but I would not be surprised if a bunch of these remakes is part of a contingency strategy that TLG created a few years ago in the event of declining sales. 

I said as much earlier - that this was likely an attempt at some short term revenue - this set will sell in the beginning and the effort to put it into the market was beyond low.. but I still think it's short sighted. Obviously they know large sets sell well ... but I think they're missing the mark on what has been selling well if they believe the Taj Mahal is going to right the ship. I think they said "wow, look at what Taj sells for on the secondary market after all these years .. we should release that one." 

If it was really about releasing retired sets for fans, you'd think a set such as the Statue of Liberty (released in 2000) would be higher on the list... but it's a dated look, it requires more redesign work than slapping a new background and box art together. Even the Eiffel Tower which was 2007 would have been a prime candidate for a remake with updated parts/building techniques. I think they purposely chose this set because of the price point on the secondary market... it blows all but the the original MF and Cafe Corner out of the water.

 

[cubfan78]

1 minute ago, gregpj said:

I said as much earlier - that this was likely an attempt at some short term revenue - this set will sell in the beginning and the effort to put it into the market was beyond low.. but I still think it's short sighted. Obviously they know large sets sell well ... but I think they're missing the mark on what has been selling well if they believe the Taj Mahal is going to right the ship. I think they said "wow, look at what Taj sells for on the secondary market after all these years .. we should release that one." 

If it was really about releasing retired sets for fans, you'd think a set such as the Statue of Liberty (released in 2000) would be higher on the list... but it's a dated look, it requires more redesign work than slapping a new background and box art together. Even the Eiffel Tower was 2007 and would have been a prime candidate for a remake with updated parts/building techniques. I think they purposely chose this set because of the price point on the secondary market... it blows all but the the original MF and Cafe Corner out of the water.

 

 

No doubt, that this is a short-term solution but it buys them some time to plan their next move. I would not be surprised if the remakes continue. In fact, I would not be totally surprised to see a remake of CC, GG, and the Eiffel Tower in the next year or two. Again, I think this is a plan that was designed to be a life raft for Lego, while they figure out a long-term solution to their declining sales. 

[snot]

I drastically reduced my investments in Lego a few years ago because I had a bad feeling about the increase in the number of investors.  It's like they say, when the uber driver is giving you Lego investing tips, its way past time to sell.  And now this?  Even if the driving purpose is to combat counterfits, with the re-releases of the DS, MF, and TAJ, it gives an impression that Lego is just tired, out of ideas, and just for the cash grab.  I always wanted the TAJ, but couldn't convince myself to pay the high price.  Now that it is being re-released, I find that I have lost interest in it too even if it will be available at a cheaper price.  Why would I want to build or display something so common and available, and will probably stay common and available at msrp or cheaper forever?   These large collectibles will never be able to shake off the stigma that they are in fact not at all collectible, and are subject to re-release the longer they are temporarily unavailable at retail.  Set rarity was a strength for Lego, and the knock-off counterfeits reinforced the desire for the authentic thing.  But when supply is never ending... demand usually plummets as well.

Edited October 31, 2017 by snot

[ravenb99]

13 minutes ago, cubfan78 said:

While I agree that this does hurt the future of Lego collectibility, you have to try and look at it from Lego's perspective. This is a company that saw a significant enough decline in sales revenue that they had to layoff 1400 employees. They have to "right the ship" somehow, part of this process could be releasing retired sets. I know that a remake was probably in the works long before the earnings report came out but I would not be surprised if a bunch of these remakes is part of a contingency strategy that TLG created a few years ago in the event of declining sales. 

quit making to many themes, to many BS sets, way to much overproduction to where the stuff gets liquidated heavily at retail and in bulk through other avenues.  Quit extending retirement dates because of a sales spike.  Quit holding products who knows where then releasing 75,000 of a poly on a retailer months after it has no interest.  Quit releasing the holiday sets that you retire on your website one year after with new print / batch codes.  Quit giving out the same promos years later.   Make some new concepts instead of just retiring the previous smaller set then releasing another.  

Those are all things that would help right the ship over re releasing the same set you've already offered before.   People want new stuff when it comes to big sets.   There are plenty of ways to get the retired sets that go to high for a cheaper price whether it be used or bricklinking if you are a collector and really wanted something you missed out on.   

The sales decline has everything to do with a glut of average or subpar / rehashed products and product that has been out way to long and should of been retired years ago.

People only have so much money and 600 active sets just overwhelms customers and causes disinterest in the brand as well as retailers having to do drastic sales to move it.  

  

[t_mafia]

I don't really buy into the theory of "Lego is re-releasing collector sets to discourage/anger re-sellers", I think it is more along the lines of the fact that Lego is not doing as well at the moment (layoffs and decline etc.) and is looking for popular sets that they know will be bought by many people. What better way to find a sure fire seller than to look at the most valuable sets in the past? A very easy way to find some of the sets with the highest demand. 

However, I think they are missing the point completely. It may help with short term sales, but sooner or later the value and collect-ability of both the past and present sets will go down the drain. The overcompensation of tons of sets with 5,000+ pieces won't fix their problems. What they need to do is go back and design NEW and INTERESTING sets that the fans want. Releasing 20 City Helicopters, the same Star Wars, and adding 200 studs and 1x1's to every set to increase the price by $40 won't work.

[gregpj]

No doubt, that this is a short-term solution but it buys them some time to plan their next move. I would not be surprised if the remakes continue. In fact, I would not be totally surprised to see a remake of CC, GG, and the Eiffel Tower in the next year or two. Again, I think this is a plan that was designed to be a life raft for Lego, while they figure out a long-term solution to their declining sales. 

If they stopped releasing crappy sets that would help. For every winner there is at least one loser they should have predicted... I get the need to hit certain price points but put a little effort into it (ie maybe something other than a helicopter).

They could also stop releasing niche sets aimed at the AFOL market (60’s Batman was cool but no way it was a money maker). I think they’re listening too much to the minoritys clamouring for more niche sets and minis.

[yu051131]

god... just owned 20 boxes of 10234 Sydney Opera House , but i saw Taj Mahal re-release , totally destroyed the collectable value of landmark line ,so just deciding to sell those Opera House ASAP or just keep them slowly appreciating , does anyone have a advice???

[cubfan78]

2 minutes ago, ravenb99 said:

quit making to many themes, to many BS sets, way to much overproduction to where the stuff gets liquidated heavily at retail and in bulk through other avenues.  Quit extending retirement dates because of a sales spike.  Quit holding products who knows where then releasing 75,000 of a poly on a retailer months after it has no interest.  Quit releasing the holiday sets that you retire on your website one year after with new print / batch codes.  Quit giving out the same promos years later.   Make some new concepts instead of just retiring the previous smaller set then releasing another.  

Those are all things that would help right the ship over re releasing the same set you've already offered before.   People want new stuff when it comes to big sets.   There are plenty of ways to get the retired sets that go to high for a cheaper price whether it be used or bricklinking if you are a collector and really wanted something you missed out on.   

The sales decline has everything to do with a glut of average or subpar / rehashed products and product that has been out way to long and should of been retired years ago.

People only have so much money and 600 active sets just overwhelms customers and causes disinterest in the brand as well as retailers having to do drastic sales to move it.  

  

 

All good points, but they don't have the immediate revenue generation that Lego needs to put a longer-term solution into place. 

I agree with only having so much money to spend on sets. I am going to pass on 10256, My wallet can only handle so many $200+ sets in one year. 

[Bold-Arrow]

11 minutes ago, yu051131 said:

god... just owned 20 boxes of 10234 Sydney Opera House , but i saw Taj Mahal re-release , totally destroyed the collectable value of landmark line ,so just deciding to sell those Opera House ASAP or just keep them slowly appreciating , does anyone have a advice???

i would like to think that we got some time on the SOH .... 

[cubfan78]

5 minutes ago, yu051131 said:

god... just owned 20 boxes of 10234 Sydney Opera House , but i saw Taj Mahal re-release , totally destroyed the collectable value of landmark line ,so just deciding to sell those Opera House ASAP or just keep them slowly appreciating , does anyone have a advice???

 

I would think you are safe. It took 10 years for Lego to remake one of the most Iconic Lego sets of all time. If it gets to the point where Lego is considering remaking 10234 things are far worse than they have let on. If you are worried about it, you could sell half your sets and try to break even and hold the other 10 for resale in 3-5 years. Or sell them all and be done with it. 

[crayxlp]

9 minutes ago, cubfan78 said:

I would think you are safe. It took 10 years for Lego to remake one of the most Iconic Lego sets of all time. If it gets to the point where Lego is considering remaking 10234 things are far worse than they have let on. If you are worried about it, you could sell half your sets and try to break even and hold the other 10 for resale in 3-5 years. Or sell them all and be done with it. 

I think that you are totally wrong (awaiting another avalanche of disagreeing different opinions).. this REMAKE (or how do you wish to address it).. wasnt planned in 2015 or 2016 as some kind of an elaborate "surprise" for Cyber Monday.. in that case it would be perfected, remodeled, re-designed in more or less similar fashion as Millenium Falcon..

BUT on the contrary LEGO commits on their official twitter account that the only (major) thing is - ".. it got a new box!".. sorry.. this is just a pure and simple acknowledgment of the fact " WE HAD TEN YEARS TO IMPROVE THE MODEL - but we didnt.. ".. why? because it was so easy given the interim profit results to "resurrect" something ICONIC.. something EXPENSIVE.. that has proved its value on the secondary market..

WHAT IT WOULD TAKE? .. just to mould the bricks, the building plans were already made (just to print them) and print a new outer box.. no xxx months of designer builds.. no.. why? . its been PERFECT before, we have the moulds (ok, need to replace them) but still its so cheap to start production again... 

[Bold-Arrow]

1 minute ago, crayxlp said:

I think that you are totally wrong (awaiting another avalanche of disagreeing different opinions).. this REMAKE (or how do you wish to address it).. wasnt planned in 2015 or 2016 as some kind of an elaborate "surprise" for Cyber Monday.. in that case it would be perfected, remodeled, re-designed in more or less similar fashion as Millenium Falcon..

BUT on the contrary LEGO commits on their official twitter account that the only (major) thing is - ".. it got a new box!".. sorry.. this is just a pure and simple acknowledgment of the fact " WE HAD TEN YEARS TO IMPROVE THE MODEL - but we didnt.. ".. why? because it was so easy given the interim profit results to "resurrect" something ICONIC.. something EXPENSIVE.. that has proved its value on the secondary market..

WHAT IT WOULD TAKE? .. just to mould the bricks, the building plans were already made (just to print them) and print a new outer box.. no xxx months of designer builds.. no.. why? . its been PERFECT before, we have the moulds (ok, need to replace them) but still its so cheap to start production again... 

and numbered bags, don't forget the number bags 

[crayxlp]

5 minutes ago, Bold-Arrow said:

and numbered bags, don't forget the number bags 

true. I forgot that. You are right.. in your honest opinion - do you see that as some kind of a major logistics issue in the plant?

[Bold-Arrow]

Just now, crayxlp said:

true. I forgot that. You are right.. in your honest opinion - do you see that as some kind of a major logistics issue in the plant?

i was agreeing with you and poking fun at that post TLG put out... they admitted  it is the same darn set. ( i posted their twitter post few pages back ) 

[crayxlp]

Just now, Bold-Arrow said:

i was agreeing with you and poking fun at that post TLG put out... they admitted  it is the same darn set. ( i posted their twitter post few pages back ) 

Sorry. .. its hard (for me) to get a grip of a unobstrusive "sarcasm" when I dont see some accompanying smiley.. Its truly an astonishing piece of art - what you can do from the bricks - and i wish all the best to the new builders. But as from some "investment point", its got to be total loser such as Tower Bridge, Big Ben and such..