Don't know about you all but i'm taking cover.  10188s are flying all over the place today.

It's an interesting point and I can certainly understand why TLG wouldn't want current sets listed on eBay or Amazon market place but I don't see why they would want to prevent retired products from being listed. Having older sets grow in value helps justify a $200+ MSRP for a box of plastic and give lego fans access to sets no longer produced.

So I would see that more an issue for QFLL than long term.

I agree.  LEGO doesn't care about retired sets.  They care about resellers competing against them with sets still available at retail.  The care about the Minecrafts and Research Institutes of the world and resellers sucking inventories dry so that they cannot reach all the end users directly.  The appreciation of retired LEGO sets does help justify the high cost of a LEGO set and LEGO knows this 100%.  

We all should be grateful that LEGO restricts resellers and purchase limits, otherwise, if they produced sets with reckless abandon, we would end up another Baseball Card situation.  

 

 

Isn't Lego ranked in the top 2 of things that are sold on eBay collectibles (I think the first was baseball cards or something)? If they implement a reseller rule it would definitely kill them as well so I don't really see this happening any time soon (if at all). 

You're going to get businesses popping in and out and flipping Lego like those photocopy places at university selling contraband textbooks. hahaha

LEGO products are the #1 toy collectible sold on eBay, but as collectibles go, they are behind stamps, coins and sports memorabilia (Baseball Cards in this category).  On any given time, there are hundreds of thousands of LEGO listings on eBay.  I doubt eBay would give up that market without a fight.  Just look at our stats...In less than five years ( 4 actually...since 2011), we have aggregated over $260,000,000.00 sold auctions from sold.LEGO auctions.  Here is a quick breakdown:

$40,157,724-- 2011
$51,862,540-- 2012
$62,663,718-- 2013
$72,755,763-- 2014
$33,708,331-- 2015 (up to June 23rd)

eBay gets approximately 10% of those figures.  For those of you wondering about LEGO pressuring eBay to change policies regarding reselling, I highly doubt eBay would want to lose millions annually and implement new seller restrictions.  

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by Ed Mack

We all should be grateful that LEGO restricts resellers and purchase limits, otherwise, if they produced sets with reckless abandon, we would end up another Baseball Card situation.  

 

 

I don't believe it is possible to have the early 90's card collecting craze ever happen to Lego.  The price of Lego and the space required to store it will limit the quantity.

Is it possible that there are thousands of warehouses full of old Lego sets that will exceed demand, maybe, but unlikely.  To store 1000 cases of baseball cards is not that difficult, but to store 1000 Large sets, is out of most people's reach. 

Lego is many things to many different people, but "generally speaking" the collectors are the ones buying EOL sets and building them.  When they are in demand, the prices drive upwards.

I would say the biggest danger to resellers is not the Quantity of sets but Lego making out of print unique pieces so people can make the sets.  What would happen to the 10179 if Lego produced hundred of thousands dishes with printing, grey boat masts and grey levers?

There may be many collectors who will want the brand new box to open and build but many will not care and the used set price is plummet to normal values.

I think the biggest reason they have limits is so they can have "some" control over inventory and gauge when they need to start up certain lines to make more.
 

Basically this sounds like unchartered territory for the veterans and rookies alike. The noobs are relying on the veterans for guidance, and the veterans are relying on historical data for the next move. Sounds like nobody really knows what is going to happen next. Bottom line- don't buy beyond your means- I did and will most likely be returning some stuff because i don't have the capital to sustain. There is a lot of time between now and the holidays so it is anyone's guess at this point.

I think the messaging on the death star about "more coming soon" has nothing to do with messing with resellers. It's meant for the customer at large. It conveniently allows them to tell people to stop calling to ask, they promise to make more.

The fact that this messaging is different than TOOS is probably only notable to crazy people like us. 

We already know how inconsistent Lego is with things like stock descriptions, and retirement labels. They don't play by their own rules, it seems VERY ad hoc.

What's more likely?

1) Let's put SOLD OUT on them for the death star but TOOS for the Pet Shop. This will cause resellers to buy ALL the remaining Death Stars then, just before they're ready to resell them,,,we'll tell everyone more is coming. Exxxxcellent

Or, 

2) Hey we're getting a TON of emails and calls about the Death Star being out of stock. Really? It's out of stock? Yep, so put the note up about more coming. Thanks.

I think the messaging on the death star about "more coming soon" has nothing to do with messing with resellers. It's meant for the customer at large. It conveniently allows them to tell people to stop calling to ask, they promise to make more.

The fact that this messaging is different than TOOS is probably only notable to crazy people like us. 

We already know how inconsistent Lego is with things like stock descriptions, and retirement labels. They don't play by their own rules, it seems VERY ad hoc.

What's more likely?

1) Let's put SOLD OUT on them for the death star but TOOS for the Pet Shop. This will cause resellers to buy ALL the remaining Death Stars then, just before they're ready to resell them,,,we'll tell everyone more is coming. Exxxxcellent

Or, 

2) Hey we're getting a TON of emails and calls about the Death Star being out of stock. Really? It's out of stock? Yep, so put the note up about more coming. Thanks.

good one.

they are going to pump out a lot more fasten your seat-belts lady and gents and trust me this one ain't gonna see the roof

LEGO products are the #1 toy collectible sold on eBay, but as collectibles go, they are behind stamps, coins and sports memorabilia (Baseball Cards in this category).  On any given time, there are hundreds of thousands of LEGO listings on eBay.  I doubt eBay would give up that market without a fight.  Just look at our stats...In less than five years ( 4 actually...since 2011), we have aggregated over $260,000,000.00 sold auctions from sold.LEGO auctions.  Here is a quick breakdown:

$40,157,724-- 2011
$51,862,540-- 2012
$62,663,718-- 2013
$72,755,763-- 2014
$33,708,331-- 2015 (up to June 23rd)

eBay gets approximately 10% of those figures.  For those of you wondering about LEGO pressuring eBay to change policies regarding reselling, I highly doubt eBay would want to lose millions annually and implement new seller restrictions.  

And if they did then Brick Classifieds would benefit.

LEGO products are the #1 toy collectible sold on eBay, but as collectibles go, they are behind stamps, coins and sports memorabilia (Baseball Cards in this category).  On any given time, there are hundreds of thousands of LEGO listings on eBay.  I doubt eBay would give up that market without a fight.  Just look at our stats...In less than five years ( 4 actually...since 2011), we have aggregated over $260,000,000.00 sold auctions from sold.LEGO auctions.  Here is a quick breakdown:

$40,157,724-- 2011
$51,862,540-- 2012
$62,663,718-- 2013
$72,755,763-- 2014
$33,708,331-- 2015 (up to June 23rd)

eBay gets approximately 10% of those figures.  For those of you wondering about LEGO pressuring eBay to change policies regarding reselling, I highly doubt eBay would want to lose millions annually and implement new seller restrictions.  

Thank you.  Why on earth would eBay take an action (banning lego reselling) that they are not legally obligated to take, and that would cost them millions in lost fees?  I mean, seriously.  What would the upside be for eBay?  Lego could ask, but I imagine 'Talk to the hand' would be eBay's response.

I think the common consumer like moms unloading their teen sons collection would have a problem with eBay doing that as well.

They can't even be bothered about the fakes.

Yeah... I think they would like to take action but there is not much they can do. It is like bringing water to the ocean.

First and foremost, Lego Can not Legally do that. 

First and foremost, Lego Can not Legally do that. 

Just hypothetically, can't Lego open Amazon and eBays stores, and then cease/desist whoever they like (or do not like). many , uhm, cosmetics brands do that...

Just hypothetically, can't Lego open Amazon and eBays stores, and then cease/desist whoever they like (or do not like). many , uhm, cosmetics brands do that...

Offcourse they can. That would kill the QFLL sub-culture right away I think. But you should not give them these ideas. Unless you are not a QFLL. 

I agree.  LEGO doesn't care about retired sets.  They care about resellers competing against them with sets still available at retail.  The care about the Minecrafts and Research Institutes of the world and resellers sucking inventories dry so that they cannot reach all the end users directly.  The appreciation of retired LEGO sets does help justify the high cost of a LEGO set and LEGO knows this 100%.  

We all should be grateful that LEGO restricts resellers and purchase limits, otherwise, if they produced sets with reckless abandon, we would end up another Baseball Card situation.  

 

 

Well, I agree and disagree.

I agree with your last statement completely.  I'm certainly happy that there is a lifecycle to their sets.  I think overall, though, it does allow them to feel fresh and feel like there is a constant turn over in product.  That feel as if they are constantly innovating.  That's good for consumer confidence.

However, I disagree that LEGO doesn't care about retired sets.  You back it up with your numbers.  Look at all that money going through eBay on LEGO sales.  None of those sales are going to LEGO themselves.  That's money that people could be spending on new product, direct from LEGO (or their authorized resellers) but isn't.  Wouldn't LEGO enjoy having another $40M in sales coming direct to them?

The counter to that might be "but they've already made money on those sets!" and yes I would agree on that.  But, that's $40M that's not being spent on NEW sets that they've got on sale today.

Well, I agree and disagree.

I agree with your last statement completely.  I'm certainly happy that there is a lifecycle to their sets.  I think overall, though, it does allow them to feel fresh and feel like there is a constant turn over in product.  That feel as if they are constantly innovating.  That's good for consumer confidence.

However, I disagree that LEGO doesn't care about retired sets.  You back it up with your numbers.  Look at all that money going through eBay on LEGO sales.  None of those sales are going to LEGO themselves.  That's money that people could be spending on new product, direct from LEGO (or their authorized resellers) but isn't.  Wouldn't LEGO enjoy having another $40M in sales coming direct to them?

The counter to that might be "but they've already made money on those sets!" and yes I would agree on that.  But, that's $40M that's not being spent on NEW sets that they've got on sale today.

Which would be perfectly their own fault. If their present-day sets could hold a candle to the ones from 2007-2012 when it comes to quality/overall design, we probably wouldn't exist as a niche. Large exclusives notwithstanding of course.

Well, I agree and disagree.

I agree with your last statement completely.  I'm certainly happy that there is a lifecycle to their sets.  I think overall, though, it does allow them to feel fresh and feel like there is a constant turn over in product.  That feel as if they are constantly innovating.  That's good for consumer confidence.

However, I disagree that LEGO doesn't care about retired sets.  You back it up with your numbers.  Look at all that money going through eBay on LEGO sales.  None of those sales are going to LEGO themselves.  That's money that people could be spending on new product, direct from LEGO (or their authorized resellers) but isn't.  Wouldn't LEGO enjoy having another $40M in sales coming direct to them?

The counter to that might be "but they've already made money on those sets!" and yes I would agree on that.  But, that's $40M that's not being spent on NEW sets that they've got on sale today.

Don't forget we're talking about resellers here. The money being spent on ebay has already gone through Lego when the set was originally sold.

Today resellers give TLG tons of additional sales at EOL like you're seeing with PS, PC and DS. All those sales would disappear if they somehow managed to prevent reselling retired sets. They would be forced to clear sets out at EOL with sales and so would their partners.

No, I firmly believe they are at worst indifferent to the 3rd party market of retired sets. After all, if they thought they could still make money from a set they would just not retire it (DS has been here for 7 years) or they would rerelease it (R5). 

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by gbg108

Well, I agree and disagree.

I agree with your last statement completely.  I'm certainly happy that there is a lifecycle to their sets.  I think overall, though, it does allow them to feel fresh and feel like there is a constant turn over in product.  That feel as if they are constantly innovating.  That's good for consumer confidence.

However, I disagree that LEGO doesn't care about retired sets.  You back it up with your numbers.  Look at all that money going through eBay on LEGO sales.  None of those sales are going to LEGO themselves.  That's money that people could be spending on new product, direct from LEGO (or their authorized resellers) but isn't.  Wouldn't LEGO enjoy having another $40M in sales coming direct to them?

The counter to that might be "but they've already made money on those sets!" and yes I would agree on that.  But, that's $40M that's not being spent on NEW sets that they've got on sale today.

Lego can't even keep up with fulfilling orders on current releases...

Well, I agree and disagree.

I agree with your last statement completely.  I'm certainly happy that there is a lifecycle to their sets.  I think overall, though, it does allow them to feel fresh and feel like there is a constant turn over in product.  That feel as if they are constantly innovating.  That's good for consumer confidence.

However, I disagree that LEGO doesn't care about retired sets.  You back it up with your numbers.  Look at all that money going through eBay on LEGO sales.  None of those sales are going to LEGO themselves.  That's money that people could be spending on new product, direct from LEGO (or their authorized resellers) but isn't.  Wouldn't LEGO enjoy having another $40M in sales coming direct to them?

The counter to that might be "but they've already made money on those sets!" and yes I would agree on that.  But, that's $40M that's not being spent on NEW sets that they've got on sale today.

In real terms, if LEGO went after secondary sales, their primary sales would suffer.  Here is an excellent article on the sneaker giant, Nike.  The sneaker secondary market is quite robust as well, but Nike promotes it.  Check it out...

http://blog.campless.com/2014/08/19/an-inquiry-into-can-nike-get-that-resell-cash/

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by Ed Mack

In real terms, if LEGO went after secondary sales, their primary sales would suffer.  Here is an excellent article on the sneaker giant, Nike.  The sneaker secondary market is quite robust as well, but Nike promotes it.  Check it out...

http://blog.campless.com/2014/08/19/an-inquiry-into-can-nike-get-that-resell-cash/

Very interesting analysis. Thanks Ed.

Also note the following: what do we investors of Lego generally do? We reinvest the profits we made in new sets. So Lego is getting a taste of the secondary market profits. 

 

http://blog.campless.com/2014/08/19/an-inquiry-into-can-nike-get-that-resell-cash/

Even Bill Gates bends down to pick up a fifty.

What is this 2005? They could have at least dropped a Zuckerberg reference...

 

What is this 2005? They could have at least dropped a Zuckerberg reference...

It's also factually incorrect. BG makes ~$400 a second. It would cost him over $1000 to stop and pick up that $50.

It's also factually incorrect. BG makes ~$400 a second. It would cost him over $1000 to stop and pick up that $50.

He must have done something wrong if he is still being paid by the hour. 

Personally I think he gets his money for free now. So he can afford stopping a second to pick up that $50. Hence, those things only happens to the fortunate ones. I've never found $50 in the street. 

He must have done something wrong if he is still being paid by the hour. 

Personally I think he gets his money for free now. So he can afford stopping a second to pick up that $50. Hence, those things only happens to the fortunate ones. I've never found $50 in the street. 

I found $100 once...