Leaderboard

Can't we just tweak an old blog, and call it new.

In this case Jang is wrong. He's spinning what is really being said... 1) We said the designers were lazy in the Hoth set because so much was WRONG with the set. We said LEGO as a whole was lazy for rereleasing the Death Star. 2) He's taking the whole Disney tax way too seriously. Nobody but a few tin foil hats believe it... Besides, how do we know that LEGO doesn't use the price per brick ratio (he should also know better to reference the price by weight ratio) to up the price of non licensed sets to make a few extra bucks? Apparently he knows something we don't. 3) This isn't the first set we think LEGO has been greedy for. Some sets are great value and others not so much. At $500 this goes from decent value to not so much. Also, you can't magically knock $25 off because of new mini figures and 200 parts some of which are teeny cheese slopes. How do we know the true cost? With all the extra printing on minis they do these days I bet they are cheaper to produce so where is our value? 4) 10188 had no such stamp... Though it was considered UCS. 5) No but they retired the old one, and cleaned out by labelling it as retiring soon. They never said "buy it now for $400 because it's coming back and going to be $500." That's pretty dishonest in my books. 5) So he works for LEGO and is aware of the effort? They probably put a lot of effort because they made up so much of the set from nothing. If they had used the source material it would have been easier. Conclusion.... We can spin this however we choose, but overall 75159 is a huge disappointment. In my mind it makes Ass on Hoth somewhat appealing because it was an attempt (feeble) to offer something different. It's kind of a Hoth Super Pack in where the Deah Star is essentially the same.

I think one thing that Jang is overlooking is that the original 10188 set had a design cost factored into the price and since they basically re-released that same set, the design cost of 75159 is a small fraction of that original cost. That should lower the cost to the customer. Also, I think we can assume that Lego has become more efficient in manufacturing pieces and they're taking advantage of producing pieces in countries where labor is cheap. This should also lower the cost to the customer. Factoring both of these points in, I'd argue that the cost of the new set should be closer to $400 than $500.

our son entered it in tiny county fair here in the Lego category (very popular for kids to enter something at the fair), won best of show and $5 that goes with it just sayin

btw Jang's statement to me is truly in contention for "The closest-to-a-paid-comment-sounding non-paid comment of the year award".

Disney Castle - time to build...

Adopted a dog!

I stopped reading Jang's review after the point about inflation. Give me a break. Generally speaking, imported manufactured goods decrease in price over time, even in nominal dollars. Look at computers, tennis shoes, boomboxes... Anything but cars, really (the ever-increasing government mandates -- mandatory 15 airbags and rearview cameras, for example -- and potential for massive class-action suits probably accounts for the difference there). What drives our inflation rate is three categories: housing, higher education, and medical care (i.e. the three items most heavily subsidized by the government). Which of those categories includes Lego? Hint: It's a trick question.

lol

It is just some Lego employee trying to be funny.

Had decent luck on CL today. $15 for 4500. Same seller had 4502 for $15 as well but I missed out on it. Exit to add: 4502 is the Dagobah X-Wing.

1 September 2016... the day the war began.

Will update thread in future [emoji106]

I picked it up, along with a bunch of mixed lego and minifigs + manuals. Per the sellers inventory list there are about 900pc missing and a lot of the rare pieces are not accounted for. Not sure when ill get around to bricklinking the remaining pieces. Mixed lego lot had manuals, no exclusives but decided to purchase it for an extra $300.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/LEGO-Architecture-The-White-House/16532153

Also found 75917 Raptor Rampage for $35 on clearance at Target.

Was in lego store and picked up the store calendar, UK will get the London bus from 3rd to 22nd October on purchases over £50

Droid fatigue

No... he gave them 550 euro if they would take it off his hands.

Amazon has joined the party. Though, it's not much of a party, more like small get together. https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Architecture-White-House-21006/dp/B003U4A12U

We are a "no spin" zone here.

Some folks might need to retake "Lego Set Refresh vs. Rehash - 101". The mods can teach it (actually some of you could do a far better job) with Ed Mack as the guest lecturer. 10188 / 76159 and Toy Shops are rehashes. 10144 Sandcrawler and the new one are refreshes. The last 2 non-UCS MFs are somewhere in the middle. This would make a good thesis topic.

People:

"I wish I knew how to quit you"

exactly. jang does criticize many sets or parts of sections in his reviews. i wish also stated numerous times he buys his review sets and when lego does give him free stuff (e.g. the scooby doo sets in that box last yr), he gives them away in contests. however, his Opinion piece on 75159 is property much incorrect in my opinion. http://www.jangbricks.com/2016/09/lego-star-wars-death-star-returns-my.html i don't like going by piece count by cost. I wish folks would STOP using the 10 cents / piece standard. it's useless for in-depth value conversations or when making comments to support opinions. Weight is the key factor. if i have 200 or 100 bricks weighing 2 lbs, what's the diff? nothing except listing 200 bricks gives more perception of value. however, 10 cents per piece is fine for "on the fly" calculations. i somewhat disagree with his formulas (he added another) which include inflation and "more proper figures/droids " makes up enough of the $100 increase. In my opinion, $50 for 2-3 proper minifigs and 200 random elements is not worth the added cost. personally, i believe (with no proof) Lego might have included a small cost to help recoup 10188's lack of price increases to combat inflation from 2008 to 2015). i will reread Jang's article but i don't see verbal "dings" for the lack of innovation mentioned (like @just2good did in his video). Exact point by @kiltyoneal . I don't think much design innovation / time was needed into 75150. Basically, rebuild 10188 step by step and document the changes as you go for structure and aesthetic enchantments. <

Hell no....

Walmart needs to roll that back some more

That poster is the only place that the UCS moniker and 10188 was ever on the same LEGO print ad. Even Brickset did not label originally it as a UCS set. If it makes people happy, call it a UCS set, but it really did not match the original UCS design characteristics. Ewok Village should be a UCS set if the Death Star is one.

The 10188 was not originally classified as a UCS set. As for the rest of Jang's responses, he is welcome to his opinion. I beg to differ on many of them. Like my old Gran Pappy used to say..."You can put a cheese slope on a 10188, but it's still a 10188."

Actually, Jang buys all his sets retail, does not get sponsored by LEGO, and does criticize sets. He does this in a family friendly way, so no harsh language or overtly negative tone, but check out his reviews of AoH or the new Octan Gas Station. Plenty of criticism to go round.

We are not to discuss how Timmy would look at it because it ain't cool and repulsive .. Only negatives and down with Lego

Maybe ... I see the above more as a "how does a normal consumer look at this" kind of view. I know hardcore SW collectors and of course resellers don't like the 10188/75159 fiasco, but it's always interesting to see other perspectives. Jang makes a few good points, even if he's looking at it rather rosy.

Plenty of statements from Amazon coming out now: Amazon is now trying to provide some clarity on what's known as "brand gating." The Seattle-based company is telling existing sellers that they're being grandfathered into the system and that the charges, which typically range from $1,000 to $1,500 per brand, only apply to new merchants. In other words, if you've been selling Nike shoes or Hasbro toys for several years, it's business as usual. Here's what Amazon spokesman Erik Fairleigh said in an e-mailed statement to CNBC.com:

Apparently the Janitor works on Labor Day weekend by mopping up all the deals!

@just2good did a reveal too and it's a little less positive.

https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Creator-Corner-Deli-31050/dp/B017B1BESC https://www.walmart.com/ip/LEGO-LEGO-Creator-Corner-Deli-31050/47335723 Just be difficult Target is a penny more. http://m.target.com/p/lego-creator-corner-deli-31050/-/A-49119528

I completely disregarded this set at first, I had no interest in ninjago, neither did my son which surprised me as he like most cartoons!! But then I saw it in the flesh in my local store and then realised how beautiful it was, even my wife said "oh that one looks cool"!! So for me I just took the fact it was a Ninjago set out of the equation and enjoyed building a Japanese type building, which will one day fit into my modular city once I find some more room!!!

I am pulling way back in my investing because: There are just too many remakes, rehashes, whatever, that hurt long-term investing. If it was only in the UCS star wars sets that would be one thing, but it is in several different themes now including architecture (which I used to think was safe from this, though I don't see a Robie House anytime soon). The relatively few Super Heroes remakes don't matter much because there is a new Super Heroes set every five seconds so that there are almost no exclusive minifigures anymore and most of the sets in the theme leave much to be desired (I don't see Wolverine Chopper happening again). This changes many things but a collector can always hold out the hope that a new remake will come out and so the demise of the concept of a collectable that will never come again will hurt prices even on sets for which there is no remake. Longer and longer life spans for modulars and other larger sets in addition to some sets having very short life spans (Ultra Agents, etc) makes it difficult to buy near EOL. Loss of predictability may be fun for some, but regular EOL dates means much higher rates of return in a shorter time or at least it did for me. And, though it is highly debated issue (with some notable exceptions like the PR and Ecto 1), I think the quality of sets is standing still. Of course, there are other factors, like the notable increase of resealers, but the new Death Star, at least in my view, marks the end of a Lego investing era. There is still money to be made, but I'm not sure it is worth my time anymore.

The Jang statement reminds me of any of the political commentaries you hear on news stations. They choose specific details to dispute, disregard the overall view or intent of discussion, and somehow claim that the argument is now confirmed to be invalid.

Jang is awesome to me but yeah I have to agree he can be a little too positive.

Yours did too?! Must be an old war story.

Exactly! Lol every review is 5 stars. I like his page but I think he can't give his "honest" opinion...may cause an issue with Lego. Can't bite the hand that feeds you..

Then it's 4 hours away, because I'm 2 hours south. Lol

I enjoy his reviews but that guy is always too positive and "happy go lucky".

I've never rated a set on S@H, but I have a 1 brick rating locked and loaded for 75159 as my first.

This one is for you LEGO, inspired by @BrickLegacy and brought to you by Brickpickers everywhere.

And his other cases are realy cool too