The point is that technically, Cloud City is a UCS set.

Technically, 10131 is a UCS set

No they're not, they are exclusives not UCS, any set with minifigs (except the Lambada, and Falcon) are not UCS.

On Brickset, the City fans were discussing rereleasing sets from the modular building line, specifically Cafe Corner. Near the end of the thread, the actual TLG designer of the set showed up to give his thoughts on the matter.

I normally don't chime in, but after reading three pages of discussion I can't help but comment on a few things.

First, thank you to everyone who has supported the modular line over the years. I'm psyched that we were just able to release our 7th building! Hopefully sales will continue to stay strong so we can continue to grow and evolve the concept.

In regards to re-releases, we have considered them many times over the past several years. We learned a lot from the LEGO Legends line. First and foremost is that fans' memories are extremely difficult to match with original products. Those sets which were exact re-releases, for some reason seemed smaller, less detailed or somehow not quite as grandiose as remembered. Compared with current sets, the price value also seemed to be lacking. Sets with substitution bricks were blasted as not being authentic enough and somehow not true to the original masterpiece. In the end, more fans spoke of wanting re-releases than those who actually purchased them.

Speaking of substitution elements, the Cafe Corner could not be re-released again today without a reasonable amount of reworking and substitution elements. Our bricks are constantly evolving and improving which can cause issues when trying to stay true to an original design. For example, we no longer have the molds for the doors which were used for both the corner and side door. Our substitution options for these doors would be 1 brick taller which would affect the look and build of the entire set. The wall elements used in the mid-floor now have extra support structures which look slightly different than the originals. Our 1x6x1 arches have changed as well as several other elements.

So far all of the modular buildings with the possible exception of Market Street have lived in the market for an average of 3 years. Cafe Corner was retired with the launch of the Grand Emporium. Considering that our standard retail range usually lasts 6 months to 2 years, I believe there has been a reasonable amount of time to purchase each of the modulars.

Unfortunately this does not help those of you who missed out on the Cafe Corner and now want to buy it. As a fellow fan, I too am struggling to balance bricklink and Ebay LEGO purchases with maintaining a mortgage and relationship :)

All I can recommend is to keep your eyes open for bargains (craigslist, yard sales and word of mouth through friends) and keep up the optimism. I'm not sure I'll ever get all the sets I've always wanted...but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing...

Take from that what you will, but it appears TLG is not in the business of rereleasing sets if they can help it.

On Brickset, the City fans were discussing rereleasing sets from the modular building line, specifically Cafe Corner. Near the end of the thread, the actual TLG designer of the set showed up to give his thoughts on the matter.

Take from that what you will, but it appears TLG is not in the business of rereleasing sets if they can help it.

I've read that comment before. But this topic has never been about rereleasing sets. It's about redesigning old UCS sets; in other words, releasing an entirely new UCS Star Destroyer, X-Wing, Naboo Starfighter, etc. No one would argue that this year's X-Wing is a "rerelease" of the one from 1999. It's an entirely new model depicting the same thing.

No they're not, they are exclusives not UCS, any set with minifigs (except the Lambada, and Falcon) are not UCS.

And the new super star destroyer as well. Though I wonder why that one came with any minifigs at all. In the other two sets, the minifigs can fit inside.

On Brickset, the City fans were discussing rereleasing sets from the modular building line, specifically Cafe Corner. Near the end of the thread, the actual TLG designer of the set showed up to give his thoughts on the matter.

Take from that what you will, but it appears TLG is not in the business of rereleasing sets if they can help it.

He makes a good point about the difference in pieces if a set is rereleased. From what I understand of their manufacturing process, molds are often "retired" after a period of time, and new ones are not cheap to produce. I imagine a similar problem exists for printed pieces (for example, the radar dish on the Millennium Falcon). So they would have to look to either existing pieces for a "close enough" fit, or making new molds/prints for a set.

I feel as though I read an article somewhere about the cost of molds for new pieces and whatnot, but for the life of me can't remember where that was.

And the new super star destroyer as well. Though I wonder why that one came with any minifigs at all. In the other two sets, the minifigs can fit inside.

I knew they was one I forgot .

And the new super star destroyer as well.

and the new R2-D2

... It has been nice to have a debate ...

Yes, it's been fun! Thank you.

The point is that technically, Cloud City is a UCS set...

No they're not, they are exclusives not UCS, any set with minifigs (except the Lambada, and Falcon) are not UCS.

The most likely 'evidence' that can help us understand what UCS is beyond being an exciting marketing slogan are the models in the collection it promotes. i.e. what is the product!

... accepting that means we can...

...focus on other aspects of Lyichir's topic i.e. Is it a good idea for Lego to redesign old UCS' and how would the fandom feel about it?

Oh no! It's the old 'what the hell is a UCS collection anyway' conversation!

Maybe I don't need to summarize the following for many of you but for the sake of clarity...

I'd say most AFOL consider UCS models to be the 'sculpture sets' and those with name plates. Mind you only some of these sets have 'Ultimate Collector's Series' on their boxes but the slogan can also appear in the product description instead. A few have no such UCS 'badge' but their name plates and 'build theme' obviously tie them in with the rest of the collection.

Besides MOCS of UCS builds within our community aren't in anyway 'system' related or abundant with play features so basically the people have spoken with their bricks!

Clearly we primarily perceive them as adult oriented 'faithful models' or 'artistic sculptures' akin to the 'Landmarks' theme. They represent an opportunity for Lego to show off what's possible with their product while appealing to particular consumers rather than the usual target group for system sets (however creative and clever they are, large or small or limited in release). Most members posting here must be assuming the same given our discussion has focused on models such as the X-Wing, Tie Interceptor & Star Destroyer.

To many of faithful collectors, MOCers and admirers out there this series is limited to, shall I say, the 'traditional' UCS releases such as...

7181, 7191, 7194, 10018, 10019, 10026 (despite the size), 10030, 10129, 10134, 10143, 10174, 10175, 10179, 10186, 10212, 10215, 10221 (despite the bridge), 10225 and hopefully 10227 (despite Cavegod's hints that it will have power functions- what a stirrer! ).

... as opposed to large playsets or unique builds like 10123, 10131, 10144, 10178, 10188, 10195 and 10198- these are the confusing 'Exclusive' releases or the rest of the 10,000's range.

KimT avoided any controversy by lumping 'UCS' and 10,000's together in our Star Wars Review Index but some members have assumed this means they are one and the same thing. Dare I say that to the average collector of UCS sets they aren't!

So why the mess in the first place?

To the best of my knowledge confusion as to what a UCS model was didn't set in until Shop@home started advertising what had otherwise been referred to as 'exclusives' on its website's UCS page some years ago. None of these exclusives make mention of being UCS' in their product description or box art and obviously lack any unifying characteristics with traditional UCS sets other than also being Star Wars themed.

I didn't start paying attention to Shop@home until 2008 so I can't confirm when all this began (possibly in 2004 with 10131, the Tie Collection- even though Lego's press release had referred to it as a "SHOP at HOME exclusive"). At the time I'd already established an idea of what a UCS model was from other sources like Brickset, Bricklink and, well, all the other collectors out there!!!

Since then Shop@home's UCS page has been dropped in favor of an 'Exclusives' category so the whole saga seemed like an open and shut case of web site managerial decisions rather than any major change in brand name identity for the theme...

BUT!

Back in June 2006 there was a Star Wars.com poll to establish a future UCS set for 2007. The winner was 10178 (the Motorized Walking AT-AT)- a set which many of us still call an exclusive!

...and then!

This poster in 2010. Obviously Lego's marketing department has no problem mentioning 'ultimate' with 10123, 10131, 10144, 10188, 10195 and 10198 alongside many of the other traditional UCS sets. In fact all of the 'exclusives' make it onto the 10th anniversary UCS poster art.

There you go! For at least the last six years UCS has meant a broader product concept to Lego than some of its customers have cared to accept (including myself) and AFOL online communities have promoted this fine piece of self-deception rather effectively.

So Brickadeer, Mr. Man you're both right! Brickadeer's just more in line with TLG's ideas and Mr. Man's got the people's vote (and mine 'cause I'm all for self-delusion)!

Edited April 6, 201212 yr by Aeroeza

and the new R2-D2

Though they are UCS, I tend to class General Grievous, Darth Maul, Yoda, and the new R2 as statuettes (which are only possible to be UCS as opposed to system).

Though they are UCS, I tend to class General Grievous, Darth Maul, Yoda, and the new R2 as statuettes (which are only possible to be UCS as opposed to system).

I'd agree with you. Also, sets like the Death Star and Cloud City I would consider "big playsets". They're not exactly to put somewhere and never touch it. If you're a kid, you're likely to play with it.

Though they are UCS, I tend to class General Grievous, Darth Maul, Yoda, and the new R2 as statuettes (which are only possible to be UCS as opposed to system).

It does say 'UCS' on Yoda's box art so that's kinda, well indisputable! Although your distinction, 'statuettes', sounds most collectable...

It does say 'UCS' on Yoda's box art so that's kinda, well indisputable! Although your distinction, 'statuettes', sounds most collectable...

Oh I'm not saying my 'Statuettes' aren't UCS, jut that they deserve another little title. Thanks .

I'd agree with you. Also, sets like the Death Star and Cloud City I would consider "big playsets". They're not exactly to put somewhere and never touch it. If you're a kid, you're likely to play with it.

That's kinda my whole argument , If it's got figs it's a play set (Lambada, Falcon, and SSD excluded) If not it's a UCS (excluding the original 1999 Vulture droid the only SW system set with no figs)

So where I was trying to go with my point was that, I don't think the 'true' UCS should be re released, however I have no trouble with another AT-OT, motorised AT-AT, Sandcrawler etc coming out.

Oh I'm not saying my 'Statuettes' aren't UCS, jut that they deserve another little title. Thanks .

Of course! Sorry. I see what you mean now!

I guess I'm happy to lug the vehicles and statuettes together but I simply can't conceive of any playsets as a part of that equation. And just to throw my own curve ball into the ring I'm not adverse to adding a set like the Malevolence from the 'Quest for R2' computer game into my idea of UCS. It isn't far off 10026, has it's own stand and more pieces than 7181 and 10215 (it also looks great parked beside 10186).

Suffice to say regardless of what Lego has 'confirmed' with their promotional poster we AFOL have our own ideas about what constitutes our collections. Stubborn though we are this doesn't make us 'right' merely passionate about our own concepts of the brand name. As already noted...

... until recently, it was totally irrelevant what anyone understood of "UCS". But confronted with the possibility that "UCS" may be given a different meaning by Lego, people immediately realize that that's not what they understand by "UCS".

Lyichir you've thrown your hat into the ring with your own understanding of UCS...

...I always assumed the "Ultimate" in Ultimate Collectors Series meant not that it was the only version of a ship they would ever make...

Your point of view is as much a leap of if faith as those collectors who feel the brand name suggests 'exclusivity'! Probably more so given we haven't seen any remakes to date. But I guess we've all assumed a lot about what a UCS collection was supposed to entail anyway...

The brand loyalty argument confuses me. If anything, I imagine that the redesign of older UCS sets might spoil the mood of speculators, but do you really think they'll stop buying these sets as a result? I don't, and whether or not they continue to buy sets is what matters to TLG. Besides, I reckon the classic UCS sets will remain valuable if they are redesigned. They're still massive sets, and rare ones, and sets that chronicle a specific period in TLG's history. Even if newer versions are released, the old ones remain the very first UCS sets, giving them a collectible status that none of the others have.

Well said and well worth quoting! I like how you too see these sets as chronicling specific periods in TLG's history. Mind you I'm a little nervous about the rest. I do know that as a collector myself I'd be very disappointed by another Tie Interceptor, Star Destroyer etc.

I'm no Lego speculator but I like to think my collection has a high market value regardless of the personal stake I place on it. This collection isn't a 'rational' one, it won't make me rich, it's (again) personal and brings me great pleasure to own and I simply can't justify it beyond that! As for the after market well my old 70's and 80's Star Wars Kenner toys aren't worth anywhere near as much as they used to be because of re-releases and re-makes since the 90's. I think Lego knows this and places its own 'value' on my good faith as a result which no doubt reflects many of the customers who also invest in this range. After all it is a prestige product that their marketing slogan promotes (even if it includes playsets) and I think it unlikely they'll bite the irrational hand which feeds them.

Besides they've got plenty of models and sculptures left to explore!

Remember, the AFOL market isn't large (10% or so) and probably can't absorb both remakes and new 'traditional' UCS' in any given year. The Brickset post StoutFiles found even suggests (between the lines) that demand for these sets would be pretty slim, despite only talking about re-releases. Basically you just can't escape the fact that playsets always sell better (Lego is really for kids after all) and that minifigures threaten to take over the world! Most traditional UCS' don't have either of these winning qualities so the fact they are limited to just one or two releases a year (and on one occasion in 2009 none at all) is no surprise...

We're probably lucky to get them at all!

You could also liken some of these models to concept cars! After all they promote the creativity of their designers and the novelty of a product itself rather than just reflecting a quest for pure profit! (I'm imagining here of course that they could make money regardless by catering just for children or churning out more minifigs rather than make UCS' like 10179).

Why stifle a companies self expression and threaten the chance for something new by wanting them to release a set which has nothing much to add to the overall chronicles of TLG? Surely it's our duty instead as AFOLs to follow their lead, embrace the brick and build on, rather than revisit, what's gone before?

I guess I'm happy to lug the vehicles and statuettes together but I simply can't conceive of any playsets as a part of that equation. And just to throw my own curve ball into the ring I'm not adverse to adding a set like the Malevolence from the 'Quest for R2' computer game into my idea of UCS. It isn't far off 10026, has it's own stand and more pieces than 7181 and 10215 (it also looks great parked beside 10186).

I would say the Malevolence was a Midi scale (though it appears to be in scale with the SSD).

I would say the Malevolence was a Midi scale (though it appears to be in scale with the SSD).

Yeah! I was the one who noticed that but it's not the soundest of my propositions! I've established a way of confirming the actual length of Malevolence but need to do quite a bit of 3D animation first...

...of course no 'canon' man would care...

Yeah! I was the one who noticed that but it's not the soundest of my propositions! I've established a way of confirming the actual length of Malevolence but need to do quite a bit of 3D animation first...

...of course no 'canon' man would care...

And so it was, I forgot where I heard that from .

I would care .

Wow - interesting reading 3 years on. Now everything has changed and lego think nothing of re working older UCS sets, I wonder if some of the more "precious" collectors who originally posted are still buying lego, or as their posts suggest have given up on TLG for the lack of "love" that they have been shown. Roll on a re-worked Y Wing please!

Ha!

Agreed, a great topic to revisit. Although I rolled my eyes on occasion, one cannot deny the...err...passion the LEGO Brand creates

TLG unwittingly created a monster when they slapped the UCS label on their first big SW set. Flagship Series, or even dusting off the Expert Builder tag may have avoided the notion that LEGO was out to 'reward' certain loyal AFOLs. It's all about making money and attracting newcomers to the brand, and I'm very satisfied with that approach. Can't wait for another Star Destroyer!

Argh, don't reopen this thread again .

(N/m)

Edited February 25, 201510 yr by Blondie-Wan

Heavens above! That new UCS X Wing sure looks great in my collection...

After all, the old one was getting yellowed bricks!! ;)

Argh, don't reopen this thread again .

Oops!

Edited February 25, 201510 yr by Aeroeza