75159 - UCS: Death Star (2016)

[gregpj]

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

[jaisonline]

Orphan Annie might not be as popular as The Queen with rotating Death Stars but she's also not happy about 75159.

 

3 hours ago, gregpj said:

This one is for you LEGO, inspired by @exciter1 and brought to you by Brickpickers everywhere.

 

[Voltron]

I was at the lego store a week ago when they put up the Disney castle in a glass cabinet at front of the store. Alot of random people who were obviously not into lego where stopping by and saying how amazing it was, then they looked at the price of £290 and were flabbergasted at that price. 

 

I can't wait to say how people react to the £400 price tag. 

[Val-E]

so 500 euros in the "cheap" countries, likely means 550 over here and in Holland. Thank TLG for that wiggle room re 10188. The UK price now fits in a lot better with the rest if we take a 1.25 exchange rate against the euro, so they have even more safety margin.

[TheOrcKing]

4 hours ago, California92563 said:

They made Han look like a ******. 

[c_rpg]

I can't wait till the designer video is released

[labfreak7]

Does anyone have side by side pictures of the new vs. old minifigures?

[archimedes]

Those extra 213pcs work out at 56p each in the UK. I know, inflation and blah blah blah but still, 213pcs for an extra £125 is disgusting

[Guest TabbyBoy]

Just now, archimedes said:

Those extra 213pcs work out at 56p each in the UK. I know, inflation and blah blah blah but still, 213pcs for an extra £125 is disgusting

I think the old/new DS sets are disgusting - period! ;-)

[Manse1001]

I agree £400 for this set is a disgrace !! However, as with all these things there will be late comers to the party who missed out on 10188 who desperately wanted a death star and therefore they will still pay it.  People are still paying £400 for 10188 now, and probably would have continued to pay even more for it in the future if the 'rehash' hadn't of happened.

My plan now is to avoid this set and continue to watch the market of 10188.  I've recently sold the last of my stock at £400 cash which netted me a tidy profit, and resellers will undoubtedly continue to panic and price fight their way to the bottom, what ever that price may be.  A few days ago one sold on Ebay (New) for £315 shipped, this is the lowest I've seen one sale for in some time, although the average is sitting slightly higher at present.  But as it continues to fall I may swoop in another.  You never know, the price may rise again in the future depending on the outcome of 75159, worst case I'll buy it for me son who is too young to tackle it at present but in a few years he'll love to build this set.

[Fenix_2k1]

The thing that worries me most about the price point of this set is if it doesn't do well, Lego execs come to the conclusion that they can't sell anything at that price point and we don't see the remakes of 10 yr old sets people are craving.

I'd happily pay the price for a reimagining of 10030 or 10179 but not for a slight update to a set that was available only a year ago.

[Ed Mack]

All major fan sites have it referenced. Can't find the source though.
http://brickfanatics.co.uk/lego-star-wars-75159-death-star-officially-announced/

If the quote is from a LEGO source, then they have obviously read all the negative reviews. Once again, a remake is angering more people than pleasing. Remakes of classic sets are bad for business in the long term, regardless of some short term success.

It will destroy or damage the secondary market and give the impression LEGO is lazy and uncreative. This quote, if legit, is unfounded in the LEGO universe. Basically they are saying this is an anomaly and just go with it, we won't mess around with any more remakes (10179?). This is an excellent indicator, if true, that LEGO does listen to fans and is worried about losing them in my opinion.

[Manse1001]

The thing is whats classed as a 'classic set' these days ?! If the UCS emblem gets chucked about like confetti on sets such as AOH then the 'classic status' goes out the window with it?! We've already seen remakes of Slave1 and the SC.  Yes the remakes were far more superior but whats to say its not going to happen again? We can all except remakes of a city Police station and a entry level Falcon, but if this is a sign of the times then its bad for the secondary market period.  I guess it boils down to how quickly the 'remake' is produced and the diversity of it.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Manse1001

[BrickLegacy]

15 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

If the quote is from a LEGO source, then they have obviously read all the negative reviews. Once again, a remake is angering more people than pleasing. Remakes of classic sets are bad for business in the long term, regardless of some short term success.

It will destroy or damage the secondary market and give the impression LEGO is lazy and uncreative. This quote, if legit, is unfounded in the LEGO universe. Basically they are saying this is an anomaly and just go with it, we won't mess around with any more remakes (10179?). This is an excellent indicator, if true, that LEGO does listen to fans and is worried about losing them in my opinion.

I actually stumbled upon a similar, if not identical quote on the EB forums when the Toy Shop was remade.  From our friend CM4Sci 

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?s=b3166e57ea80022d1260b518c3f4f7e1&showtopic=113453&st=50#entry2302895

 

[Darth_Raichu]

16 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

If the quote is from a LEGO source, then they have obviously read all the negative reviews. Once again, a remake is angering more people than pleasing. Remakes of classic sets are bad for business in the long term, regardless of some short term success.

It will destroy or damage the secondary market and give the impression LEGO is lazy and uncreative. This quote, if legit, is unfounded in the LEGO universe. Basically they are saying this is an anomaly and just go with it, we won't mess around with any more remakes (10179?). This is an excellent indicator, if true, that LEGO does listen to fans and is worried about losing them in my opinion.

Yes, but before public get sick of yearly SW movies.

[exciter1]

3 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Yes, but before public get sick of yearly SW movies.

I totally believe this will happen, but we'll see.

[Fenix_2k1]

I can accept remakes if there is decent time between them and the up to date building techniques are brought to bear.

The Sandcrawler remake time frame seemed to be pushing it when it was released but at least it was a vastly superior model. 

Same with 10240, improved model and big gap between remakes. Not many complaints from collectors. 

Lego just don't seem to quite know what they are doing with the UCS line up.  Its a brilliant concept but they have devalued it massively this year with two very lazy releases.

 

[KShine]

36 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

If the quote is from a LEGO source, then they have obviously read all the negative reviews. Once again, a remake is angering more people than pleasing. Remakes of classic sets are bad for business in the long term, regardless of some short term success.

It will destroy or damage the secondary market and give the impression LEGO is lazy and uncreative. This quote, if legit, is unfounded in the LEGO universe. Basically they are saying this is an anomaly and just go with it, we won't mess around with any more remakes (10179?). This is an excellent indicator, if true, that LEGO does listen to fans and is worried about losing them in my opinion.

Like when they obviously learned from reading all the negative views about the Toy Shop, not to mention the other negative rehash opinions (Iconic Easter Chicken, UCS Hoth, etc).

We don't need to keep making excuses for them, and assuming that they will change (now that they know the truth, which by the way, they already knew)

What we need to do is learn from their behavior, and what we have learned is that LEGO will lie - Retired, Exclusive mean nothing. Yes, they might tweak this or that, justifying the lie with some legalese excuses - but it is nonsense.

Edited September 1, 2016 by KShine

[zskid00]

20 minutes ago, Manse1001 said:

We've already seen remakes of Slave1 and the SC.  Yes the remakes were far more superior but whats to say its not going to happen again? 

Did I miss something?  I swear I saw someone else mention a remake of the Slave 1, but the only UCS version of that ship is 75060.  All other versions were regular system minifigure scale sets.

[jaisonline]

26 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

If the quote is from a LEGO source, then they have obviously read all the negative reviews. Once again, a remake is angering more people than pleasing. Remakes of classic sets are bad for business in the long term, regardless of some short term success.

It will destroy or damage the secondary market and give the impression LEGO is lazy and uncreative. This quote, if legit, is unfounded in the LEGO universe. Basically they are saying this is an anomaly and just go with it, we won't mess around with any more remakes (10179?). This is an excellent indicator, if true, that LEGO does listen to fans and is worried about losing them in my opinion.

.... until 10179, 10196 and others are rehashed since there is a market for those who missed out of iconic sets at retail. 

if lego really cared about rehashes, they would have stopped after the toy shop last yr (99% identical) even before 10188-75159 this yr.  

rehashing might make AFOLs upset but it prob also demonstrated to Lego how to reduce costs and increase the design phase for sets they know will sell.

i know you said 75159 won't be a good seller but i think it will sell nicely even at $500 a pop (it might get discounted to help sell).  10188 was a hugely popular set and when it retired, i had people (who know I was into Lego as an AFOL with KFOLs) asking me how to buy one because it was awesome.

[Manse1001]

10 minutes ago, zskid00 said:

Did I miss something?  I swear I saw someone else mention a remake of the Slave 1, but the only UCS version of that ship is 75060.  All other versions were regular system minifigure scale sets.

No there was no remake of a UCS Slave 1 or SC, so my message was mis interpreted.  All I was implying is that just recently the UCS emblem is losing a bit of creditably as per the last two sets, as with recent goings on its a concern that either model could easily be re-vamped after retiring.

And the recent lego quote now found to have been used on the Toy shop and DS should be taken with a pinch of salt unfortunately.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Manse1001

[Ciglione]

2 hours ago, c_rpg said:

I can't wait till the designer video is released

Was there a designer video for 10188? 

[Manse1001]

30 minutes ago, KShine said:

Like when they obviously learned from reading all the negative views about the Toy Shop, not to mention the other negative rehash opinions (Iconic Easter Chicken, UCS Hoth, etc).

We don't need to keep making excuses for them, and assuming that they will change (now that they know the truth, which by the way, they already knew)

What we need to do is learn from their behavior, and what we have learned is that LEGO will lie - Retired, Exclusive mean nothing. Yes, they might tweak this or that, justifying the lie with some legalese excuses - but it is nonsense.

I agree, and therefore in conclusion I see the best and only way to protect ourselves is if we all become QFLL!!! ;o(

[Mos_Eisley]

8 minutes ago, Ciglione said:

Was there a designer video for 10188? 

It was probably released before they had designer videos. That's probably why they rereleased the set, they needed a designer video for the archives. 

[ISO8T0]

I think 2012 was the start for designer and other videos for LEGO.

 

[Ciglione]

I am not buying any of this sh1t lego is selling anymore. They could have learned their lessons after the toy shop. But obviously they didn't. So what keeps them from rehashing other sets now? If one deer is over the dam...