Collecting vs. Investing: Should Lego bring back retired sets?

[psusyntar]

I have always enjoyed Lego, though I have just started collecting various sets (mostly Star Wars) within the last year.  I have kept myself mostly to the original trilogy sets and I have stuck with the vehicles (just because there are so many).  I also have just joined this site within the last few weeks as I am getting into investing.  Mostly going to be small scale for right now.

 

I have seen posts in the forums about people talking about Lego wanting to do away with the secondary market and the "Golden Age" of Lego investing and selling being over.  This is bad news for investors but as long as Lego retires sets, and people want those retired sets, there will always be a secondary market.

 

I had an interesting thought though that could help collectors though possibly hurt investors.  If Lego wanted to do away with the secondary market, they should bring back retired sets periodically. 

 

Lego has all the means to bring back sets that they created (though unless the license rights ran out, among other justifications for retiring a set).  Though as I said before, I am interested mostly in Star Wars and I missed out on some great sets (mostly the UCS sets).  Lego has the license to do these sets until 2022.  So they could, in theory, put out these sets again that have retired.  As a collector, I would be all for it.

 

However, I could see how this could hurt the investor market.  Why would someone buy an Ultimate Collector's Millenium Falcon for 2862.07 ('New' price on Brickpicker 8/21) when they could get it for 500 or maybe 600 (with inflation) from the Lego store. 

 

There would still be opportunity for investors to make money as the set would be retired again but there is always that chance that Lego could bring it back in a year or two or three after doing so.  In that in between time would be the time for investors.  Though there would still be a bit of mystery that could benefit investors, would the company bring it back?  And if they did how long would someone have to wait?  A lot of questions that could benefit investors.

 

A patient collector like me could just wait it out, but there are people who just have to have it now and can not wait. 

 

Figured this forum was open for discussion on a number of ideas in the post.  My time and knowledge of Lego investing is limited, so I know there is quite a bit I still have to learn.

 

 

[Grolim]

Welcome to the site.  That's a nice long and considered first post

 

The potential issue of Lego bringing back old retired sets for new production runs has been thrown around in forums here a bit in the past.  It is sure possible that Lego could do that but in my opinion it is unlikely.  The decision would be a financial one.  They would have to weigh up expected sales vs the costs of doing another run.  These costs would likely include creating new injection molds for any unique or rare parts which were most likely at the end of their life after the first run and were destroyed.  These cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each.  Printing, packaging, and supply chain costs would all come back into play and the only real savings they may make would be on design costs.  Then on the demand side they would rely on retail demand from collects and kids, and at least some of them would have been taken out of the equation in the first release.  So a smaller potential pool of buyers.

 

It's seems more likely that Lego continues to release remakes of sets in slightly different versions or in different sizes as they have done so a lot in the past.  This means they can keep primary demand for sets as high as possible through collectors wanting all the versions of the X-Wing for example.

[El Guapo]

I agree. I would love to visit a lego factory, or see one of those "how it's made shows" about Lego. It seems as though they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face (or is the cliche I am looking for can't see the forest for the trees?) Anyways...yeah, might hurt some investors (really though...how many investors are holding a MF?) But it would hurt their brand as it would have to replace a "new" design as well as the fact that alot of the people that are able to buy it already have it. The investors would likely fall out so they would lose some sales there. I wouldn't be surprised though, if they ever came out with like a 10th Anniversary Edition or something like that...with updated minifigs or something. Just to keep it somewhat fresh as well as re-release an immensely popular set. This would be unlikely, but IMHO much more likely then just re-issueing a retired set.

[Grolim]

There is a National Geographic doco on the Lego Factory.  It follows the design and production of the latest Police Station set.  Talks about molding costs etc.  Here's a thread where it was posted: http://community.brickpicker.com/topic/1313-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-legos/?p=69224

[justafrog]

I tend to agree that Lego will continue to look forward rather than backward and that they've hit a pretty good compromise (for their profits) in releasing "new versions" of old, desirable sets.

 

Yes, they want to curb resellers and investors, but they have to do it in a way that makes financial sense for them, and I don't think a whole new production run of most retired sets will be it.

[DoNotInsertIntoMouth]

This just doesn't make financial sense. You have to innovate to be a good company. Retiring sets is what makes Lego so popular right now. Sure, people would still love Legos, but not like this. Knowing a set wont be around for ever or is rare makes me want it.

[Diabolos80]

A while back there was a thread on BP about a petition to re-release the UCS Falcon. Quite a few people here lost their cool, lol.

[willy431]

They can always remake a huge new falcon that blows away the old----see the death star and SSD versions.

[Peteparker]

This video is a wonderful little short video on how LEGO are made.  It doesn't go into as much depth as I expect the Nat Geo article does, but it's a great watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnRRDIFNxoM

I agree. I would love to visit a lego factory, or see one of those "how it's made shows" about Lego. It seems as though they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face (or is the cliche I am looking for can't see the forest for the trees?) Anyways...yeah, might hurt some investors (really though...how many investors are holding a MF?) But it would hurt their brand as it would have to replace a "new" design as well as the fact that alot of the people that are able to buy it already have it. The investors would likely fall out so they would lose some sales there. I wouldn't be surprised though, if they ever came out with like a 10th Anniversary Edition or something like that...with updated minifigs or something. Just to keep it somewhat fresh as well as re-release an immensely popular set. This would be unlikely, but IMHO much more likely then just re-issueing a retired set.

[Diabolos80]

They can always remake a huge new falcon that blows away the old----see the death star and SSD versions.

A better MF than 10179?? Impossible!!

I mean, I guess... I've never built it, so... Yeah.

[Polar_Beast]

Agree with everyone here. One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet it the conflict with shelving space. As it is, in any given Walmart or Target  there are anywhere from 20-50 unique sets for sale at one time. Imagine if sets were no longer retired, or retired sets were all of a sudden brought back... there would physically be no space to put them. The would soon have to double the aisle real estate to accommodate, and their overall sales on LEGO most likely would not double, but maybe see a small 10-15% increase therefore making it all the more unlikely.

 

As it is, the Walmarts and Targets often don't carry every theme, or at least not every set of every them (not talking about exclusives, but just regular sets) because of the same factor; too many sets on the shelfs = lower over profit margin. They're interested in stocking only the sets that will move, not carrying every set just to appease collectors (not to say that a newly un-retired set wouldn't sell, but it would take away from all the other LEGO sales making other sets much less popular). OK, I think I beat the dead horse enough.

 

-PB

[spener90]

A while back there was a thread on BP about a petition to re-release the UCS Falcon. Quite a few people here lost their cool, lol.

If anyone here is worried about Lego re-releasing particular sets (10179 or similar), they might want to think about selling the one they already have.  I am not trying to be critical with my next statement, just honest.  Lego owes you and I (investors) NOTHING, so if you would throw a fit if a new one coming out, that might be a hint that you need to make sure that if one does come out, you have sold yours.  My advice, I know a lot of the original collectors of this set would disagree with me, but that is the way that I see it.  I will also go as far as to say, if you bought the 10179 before it retired with the intentions of selling it as an investment, you would have been better off selling it by now.  I would make the claim that these people like to collect sets, not necessarily invest in them.

 

[DoNotInsertIntoMouth]

Lego shouldn't remake it - not because I have invested in it - just because I like for there to be Holy Grails.

[psusyntar]

I do agree with the idea of remaking the various Lego sets.  For example I believe there have been three versions of the AT-AT Walker.  By remaking past sets, there is potential to make them better than the best versions.

 

Rarity of something can make it more desirable.  Though I have to agree that I have not built nor seen in person the UCS Millenium Falcon, I would like it to be remade just so I can have the chance to have it. 

 

After recently re-watching 'Hot Tub Time Machine," I can see that version of the Millenium Falcon as the 'great white buffalo.'  The one you wish you had but never will.

[redcell]

Lego tried this a little over 10 years ago with the "Legends" line and re-released classic sets like Black Seas Barracuda, Main Street, Black Falcon's Fortress, and a handful of others.  The fact that the Legends line ended pretty quickly after it began seems to indicate that there just isn't a big market for reissues.  Could Lego do it?  Sure.  Does it make financial sense for Lego to do it?  Doubtful.

[TheOrcKing]

It simply would not be a smart financial decision on Lego's part to do re-releases anymore. It didn't work out so well for them back in the day and almost killed the company, and to do so now would be like product suicide. Re-designs hold some value at least because the set actually is different than the original yet similar at the same time.

[sadowsk1]

There was an official response from Lego on this subject.  Though I don't have a link handy they had their own explanation on why.  It might be available on Brickset.com.

[Bernard74]

It simply would not be a smart financial decision on Lego's part to do re-releases anymore. It didn't work out so well for them back in the day and almost killed the company, and to do so now would be like product suicide. Re-designs hold some value at least because the set actually is different than the original yet similar at the same time.

Saying that re-realising a few older sets like the Black Seas Barracuda (my first lego purchase as an adult) almost killed the company is going a bit far. But it can't have been a huge success or we would have seen more of it.

My guess that the Lego company struggling somewhat in the recent past has more to do with the upcoming of computer gaming. Lego made had to do something to make their products more competitive and they struck gold with a few things: more detailed minifigures and linking their toys to movies franchises / tv shows. Actually pretty surprised that last thing never happened earlier. Already in the 1980's that formula worked incredibly well for the Transformers, for example.

[chinothegeeko]

They can always remake a huge new falcon that blows away the old----see the death star and SSD versions.

This right here.

I think the old one would still retain a lot of its value as it is and was the first one. Just look at anything old that is remade. Originals always do better in a collectors market. 

 

I do not want exact reissues of anything, changed up a little yeah.

[DoNotInsertIntoMouth]

This right here.

I think the old one would still retain a lot of its value as it is and was the first one. Just look at anything old that is remade. Originals always do better in a collectors market. 

 

I do not want exact reissues of anything, changed up a little yeah.

 

I don't ever see them doing it though. With Inflation, what would this be - $700?

[stephen_rockefeller]

A while back there was a thread on BP about a petition to re-release the UCS Falcon. Quite a few people here lost their cool, lol.

unless this was another one, the petition was to bring back the cafe corner, and yes people did have some very strong opinions.

[Diabolos80]

That's right it was cafe corner, my bad.

[Studebricker]

A while back there was a thread on BP about a petition to re-release the UCS Falcon. Quite a few people here lost their cool, lol.

 

Actually I wouldn't mind if they rereleased the 10179, if this time they included a full interior.  That was the one thing that bugged me about the original.  If they had to price it at $799 so be it.  You know they would still sell out of them, and it would be different enough to not make the 10179 owners/sellers too upset.