89 replies to this topic

[Lyichir]

I know the common cycle of redesigns of the same ships can irk some Star Wars fans. I personally think that many of them improve upon the old sets dramatically, particularly this year's X-Wing and TIE Fighter.

But looking at the new X-Wing, I realized how outdated the classic UCS X-Wing has become.

My question is this: what would the LEGO Star Wars fandom think if a new, improved version of some of these oldest UCS sets were released? Would it be a good move to take advantage of the many advances in LEGO designs over the past decade, or would it devalue and violate the sanctity of these classic models?

[Disclaimer: I am far from a current LEGO Star Wars fan. I have not bought a Star Wars set in years, but I do like to pay attention to the theme because the redesign cycle provides a great metric for judging how far LEGO designs have come since the turn of the new millenium.]

[fyrmedhatt]

I think given enough time, we might see redesigns of some of the more recognizable ships they have done. It will probably be several years before that happens, as there are still some very recognizable ships that have not received the UCs treatment, most notably the Slave 1 and the AT-AT.

The X-Wing is certainly a set that will be redone as a UCS if the license lasts long enough, it's one of the most important ships in the movies. The same can be said for the Millennium Falcon, although it was only discontinued a few years ago, so it will probably be some time before they redo the set. I'm certain Lego has taken some notice of the extremely high resale value of 10179 and sees that as an indication that the market for a UCS Falcon is still not saturated.

For the larger UCS ships, I would not be surprised if we see more large non-UCS playsets, as we already have with the 10019 RBR - 10198 Tantive IV and the 10143 Death Star II -10188 Death Star.

[mortesv]

You raise an interesting question.

Some of the early UCS models are somewhat "primitive" by the standards today - but they still have a sense of nostalgia. I like to mod my UCS sets, but the earliest sets are too "off" and have too weird color schemes (also when looking at grey vs. bley) that modding makes little sense. I wouldn't mind lego re-making these sets in the future (I'm quite certain the will eventually), but I would like for them to "finish" before they start all over. For example am I much more interested in a Nebulon-B medical frigate or a Rebel Transport than a new X-Wing. However, I would imagine that Lego would look at the potential customers and choose to update a more well known ship rather than construct something for a niche.

In the end I would probably by a new X-wing - although I think they should make the other models first.

[StoutFiles]

I think reissues would alienate collectors and even though I'd like to have one, I don't think they should.  The collectors who supported TLG long ago are rewarded, and new collectors are welcome to pay for one on the secondary market or bricklink the parts.  It's Ultimate Collector Series for a reason, reissues negate the collector part.

[Lyichir]

StoutFiles, on 23 March 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

I think reissues would alienate collectors and even though I'd like to have one, I don't think they should.  The collectors who supported TLG long ago are rewarded, and new collectors are welcome to pay for one on the secondary market or bricklink the parts.  It's Ultimate Collector Series for a reason, reissues negate the collector part.

I wasn't talking about a reissue. I was asking whether they should create a brand new UCS X-Wing, designed from scratch. The UCS X-Wing and TIE Interceptor are over a decade old, and it shows. But I suppose even a 100% new design could be blasted as a "reissue" by collectors!

[Fuppylodders]

StoutFiles, on 23 March 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

I think reissues would alienate collectors and even though I'd like to have one, I don't think they should.  The collectors who supported TLG long ago are rewarded, and new collectors are welcome to pay for one on the secondary market or bricklink the parts.  It's Ultimate Collector Series for a reason, reissues negate the collector part.

I hate to say it but you have fallen for a common, and dare I say it, arrogant misconception.
Collector does not mean rare/limited.
Collector means something that is collected.
I can be a collector of traffic cones. Does that make them rare and valuable? No.

**Limited(/Edition)** on the other hand would be the more suitable word for your opinion. Yet there was only a certain amount of 'Limited Edition' 10179s which were the first of the MF's produced. They produced more MF's however with no production number, thus losing its limited edition status for every set produced thereafter, while those people that bought one of the LE production numbered ones had acquired the *true* limited edition sets.

Re-issues/re-design would in no way alienate collectors, it would bring them together as those that do not have the set currently, could then afford one that would 'suffice' for the fact they missed out the first time. Those people that *do* have the previous version then have the option of gaining a more 'modernised' version of their version, or... sticking with just the one they had initially due to being more than happy to settle for their first bought version.

You are right, it IS Ultimate Collectors Series for a reason, however, because it gives people the opportunity to have a lego set that is high in detail and designed primarily for AFOLs. NOT so people can partially feel a 1-upmanship on being right place/right time/having the money for it.

Reissues would only negate a limited edition set. But they would not re-issue a Limited Edition Production numbered item, because that can not be re-produced.

As for re-designing, I don't see any problem with it, as they have redesigned many sets, although since the first UCS was released, I dont believe they have re-designed any (that I know of, I could be wrong) and it has been far more years than I could expect a 'redesign' of some UCS sets. Probably due to the fact so few of them are released per year, and they would probably see it more profitable to carry on trickling out the brand new UCS sets than revisit older designs which would then face the problem of the fact lots of people already have the set so those people already are generally satisfied and make the targeted focus market smaller.
Let alone the already high demand of circumstances to be in the position to purchase one of these.

Edited by Fuppylodders, 23 March 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[StoutFiles]

Fuppylodders, on 23 March 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I hate to say it but you have fallen for a common, and dare I say it, arrogant misconception.
Collector does not mean rare/limited.
Collector means something that is collected.
I can be a collector of traffic cones. Does that make them rare and valuable? No.

I hate to say it but you have branched off topic for no reason, defining the word for other topics.  Collector does mean rare/limited, and something to be collected, when talking about the UCS line.  This is not TrafficConeCollectors.com.  We are talking about the UCS line, a line that has never reissued/redesigned a set it has made before.  There is a pride in owning a set that you know will never be made again at this size and detail, and a reason people collect the line.

Fuppylodders, on 23 March 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

**Limited(/Edition)** on the other hand would be the more suitable word for your opinion. Yet there was only a certain amount of 'Limited Edition' 10179s which were the first of the MF's produced. They produced more MF's however with no production number, thus losing its limited edition status for every set produced thereafter, while those people that bought one of the LE production numbered ones had acquired the *true* limited edition sets.

While the "Limited Edition" Falcon's are clearly more valuable than the regular UCS Falcon, they are both still collectors items.  While the other versions may not have a 1 of XXXX label on them, they are made in smaller supply than all System sets, including the ones that say Limited Edition on them just because they're sold at certain stores.  I believe you have fallen for the common misconception that limited edition has to be labeled or numbered as such.

Fuppylodders, on 23 March 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

Re-issues/re-design would in no way alienate collectors, it would bring them together as those that do not have the set currently, could then afford one that would 'suffice' for the fact they missed out the first time. Those people that *do* have the previous version then have the option of gaining a more 'modernised' version of their version, or... sticking with just the one they had initially due to being more than happy to settle for their first bought version.

You underestimate the selfishness/pride of collectors.  The vast majority do NOT want everyone else to have one.  They buy them because they are detailed and expensive enough that few would buy them, and then will one day increase in value.  Most people don't want something on display that everyone else has. If everyone has one, then what's the point?  

There would also be a lot of people that spent a bunch of money on the aftermarket to buy older UCS sets just because they want the ship and would be enraged if TLG announced a month later they were remaking those sets.  TLG has never said the UCS line would be one-and-done but many people assume that's what it means when they buy the sets.

Fuppylodders, on 23 March 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

You are right, it IS Ultimate Collectors Series for a reason, however, because it gives people the opportunity to have a lego set that is high in detail and designed primarily for AFOLs. NOT so people can partially feel a 1-upmanship on being right place/right time/having the money for it.

Reissues would only negate a limited edition set. But they would not re-issue a Limited Edition Production numbered item, because that can not be re-produced.

A redesign would affect the value of the previous set.  You can see it happen with Lego System sets, once the new version of a ship comes out the old ship heavily decreases in value.  Perhaps in the future the older version will increase in value again, but there will be an immediate noticeable devaluing of any UCS ship that is replaced.  Some people just want a large MF and if reissued, they wouldn't have to spend $1000+ on the used market.  Yes, it would not affect the Limited Edition MF's collectors, but their market is completely different than the people who just want a UCS ship to display and will pay more than retail for it.

I don't own the X-wing, or the Falcon, and would love to have them both.  However, I would prefer that when I buy any future UCS set that it will stay unique forever and be the largest version TLG has attempted.

[jFox]

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

I hate to say it but you have branched off topic for no reason, defining the word for other topics. Collector does mean rare/limited, and something to be collected, when talking about the UCS line. This is not TrafficConeCollectors.com. We are talking about the UCS line, a line that has never reissued/redesigned a set it has made before. There is a pride in owning a set that you know will never be made again at this size and detail, and a reason people collect the line.

I second this point. While sure, someone can just decide to collect anything--common or otherwise--the UCS sets seem to be much more than your average set. Look at the first letter of the acronym. This is the ULTIMATE Collector's Series. I would think most (if not all) people on these forums are collectors in one way or another, but a few choose to go that extra mile with the sets they choose to buy.

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

There would also be a lot of people that spent a bunch of money on the aftermarket to buy older UCS sets just because they want the ship and would be enraged if TLG announced a month later they were remaking those sets. TLG has never said the UCS line would be one-and-done but many people assume that's what it means when they buy the sets.

This is a good point as well, and not just for the specifically labeled UCS sets. How many people have spent a lot of money either on a boxed set, or Bricklinking a Taj Mahal, or all the sand green pieces for the Statue of Liberty set? If LEGO rereleased some of those monstrous sets they would probably lose quite a few points in the eyes of some people.

[fyrmedhatt]

Stoutfiles, I don't really understand why you and many others are so threatened by rereleases, it's been twelve years since the UCS X-Wing was released, and the set will forever be rare due to it's age. It does suck for the collectors that spent large amounts of money to get the UCS X-Wing that the value will drop temporarily while the new ship is still in production, but the same can be said for people that spent several hundred dollars for a Jabba's palace five months ago.

It's hard for me to see how Lego would care for the collectors so much as to never release a large-scale X-Wing or Millennium Falcon again. Their main concern is the bottom line, and for now at least it makes sense to release new sets that they have not done before to maximize sales. When they exhaust the mainstream OT ships and vehicles in a few years, it will be more profitable to redo some of the classics than to produce some obscure PT or EU ship, and I doubt they'll have any qualms about hurting a minority of collectors who have been around long enough to have 15-20 year old sets. Many AFOLs in a few years (when this will be an issue) were not even out of diapers when the UCS X-wing was available.

Lego will never again do piece for piece copies as they did with the Legends line for economical reasons, as it makes more sense to do a redesign using the current parts palette. Thus any "re-issue" will never be the same as the precious set and all of the UCS sets will remain unique.

The limited supply is simply due to the size and limited market for the sets, not because Lego consciously limited the numbers (other than with the first edition UCS MF's). The sets have all been available for several (as many as six) years, if Lego had made a conscious effort to keep them limited they'd number them or at least market how many there are, as we all now how great a marketing tool limited supply is.

If you are collecting Lego simply because of the rarity of items then I'd suggest you'd find a different hobby, as almost all sets are produced in tens of thousands to millions of copies, and can hardly be described as limited. A large number of UCS X-wings have been produced (they were found in most reasonable toy stores in the western world from 2000-2002), these are not 1 in 750 Gentle Giant sculptures

Quote

(jFox) This is a good point as well, and not just for the specifically labeled UCS sets. How many people have spent a lot of money either on a boxed set, or Bricklinking a Taj Mahal, or all the sand green pieces for the Statue of Liberty set? If LEGO rereleased some of those monstrous sets they would probably lose quite a few points in the eyes of some people.

And how many AFOLs do you think would be ecstatic to be able to be building with sand green macaroni pieces (in the case of 3450)? I'd venture to guess a heck of a lot more than there would be collectors angry because their Statue of Liberty sets would be worth slightly less... Lego does redo rare pieces all the time, without there being much of an outcry form fans. The latest and maybe best example being the Maersk Blue helmet which went for several hundred dollars and is now dime a dozen. Personally I spent a fortune on tabbed white hoses, gray 4x5 doors and 1x8 dark blue arches when Bricklinking my Cafe Corner and Market Street, but I won't harbor any hard feelings against Lego when they are rereleased. I paid a premium because I wanted those pieces immediately, if I'd done it over a three year period it might have been cheaper, but it's the risk I took.

Lego moves on because they are a company that cater to a new group of consumers every six years, and however much we like think we are the most important Lego consumers, the kids and casual fans are much more profitable.

Edited by fyrmedhatt, 24 March 2012 - 02:42 AM.

[Brickdoctor]

fyrmedhatt, on 24 March 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

Stoutfiles, I don't really understand why you and many others are so threatened by rereleases, it's been twelve years since the UCS X-Wing was released, and the set will forever be rare due to it's age.

I'm not really going to side with anyone here, because to me, the only value that matters in a set is MSRP parts per dollar and MOCing value, but I have to point out that just because a set is rare doesn't mean that there's demand for them. It doesn't matter if a MISB first-edition UCS Falcon is worth elventy-gazillion dollars if no one wants to buy one. Yes, there will be the collectors who want one of every set and the old school guys who only want the older style sets or (in some cases) the old greys and the guys with a ton of money who just want to be able to say that they own the set (nothing against any of those), but I really think they are a minority among the fans who buy discontinued sets. The rarity of the set won't change with a redesign, but the demand will drop because all those people who just want to play with a set will go for the newer, cheaper one, and if demand for the older set drops, so will its value.

That being said, I personally thing LEGO is a toy to be opened and enjoyed, and any set that's sitting around MISB is simply not getting the love and play it deserves, and I myself would never buy a set just to keep for several years and sell later.

[b4p]

I think they should, and here are the people who get upset over it:
1. Investors: It's *risk* verses reward.  Everyone knows the risks.
2. Collectors: How does a remake impact their existing collection?  It doesn't.  Some want to feel like unique snowflakes but they're not.  Get over it.
3. People who are worried about someone else getting upset, but they themselves have no issues with it.

It's just LEGO bricks, why so serious?

Edited by b4p, 24 March 2012 - 04:47 AM.

[jamie75]

Personally, I don't think Lego cares about secondary market prices. Their decisions will not have anything to do with older sets being worth less if they release a new set! Their decisions will have everything to do with "do they think it will sell now"!

With that said, I would love to have a new X-Wing, but, before we get into releasing older UCS sets, I would like them to finish with they started. They have already made an X-Wing, Y-Wing, and rumors are we are getting a UCS B-Wing soon. Which leaves the A-Wing. So, say in a year or 2 they release an A-Wing. Then, 3 to 4 years release a new X-Wing. I would at least like them to finish the main Rebel Fighters from the OT first!

Same for the Imperial ships. We have a TIE Interceptor and Vader's TIE Advanced. We still need a TIE Bomber and standard TIE Fighter. Then, I wouldn't mind if they released a new TIE Interceptor. Again, in a year or 2 release a TIE Bomber, then maybe with the new X-Wing release the TIE Fighter. We would then have all the main Imperial ships from the OT covered as well.

These are my opinions, but, I at least hope you understand my logic. Will Lego use the same logic, maybe, maybe not?! Do they care about finishing the line before starting anew! Only time will tell!!

Jamie

[Lobot]

As soon as I saw this thread I knew that it would start a heated debate!

The UCS X-wing and Star Destroyer are both beautiful, but could undoubtedly be improved with the addition of new parts and/or a re-design in my opinion.  In particular, the Star Destroyer's 'stability issues' (due to the use of magnets) could be corrected by using the same method employed in the Executor.  Personally, I'd be pleased to see any re-makes or re-releases, but can understand why some don't.  I just want Lego to keep selling UCS sets (preferably OT!!)

[mutley777]

I really don't get why people who missed these sets just can't except it! They go on about other sets for the star wars line being re-released but these sets are not like other sets. The clue is in the name people Ultimate Collectors Series. It is not called that for nothing. Now if it was called the Casual Collectors Series then maybe these points would be valid .

These sets are sold as exclusive sets with mainly high prices that only serious collectors can afford, so once the sale figures drop off the set is discontinued for that reason. Not so the after sales market can now profit. The UCS Star Destroyer was available for almost 6 years as there was the demand for the set. People also seem to for get that the UCS Falcon was available for 2 and a half years but was one of the first ever sets to do pre-orders with a 6 month wait too! That almost killed me!

[Fuppylodders]

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

I hate to say it but you have branched off topic for no reason, defining the word for other topics.  Collector does mean rare/limited, and something to be collected, when talking about the UCS line.  This is not TrafficConeCollectors.com.  We are talking about the UCS line, a line that has never reissued/redesigned a set it has made before.  There is a pride in owning a set that you know will never be made again at this size and detail, and a reason people collect the line.

I have not branched off topic(perhaps the cones was branching off, but only to give a minimal example, but it appears in your arrogance, took it literal, not as the generic example it was clear I was giving.), more corrected your incorrect understanding of a word which is entirely relevant to this thread as it dictates your reply to it.
Regardless of ultimate, like I said, that is because it is THE 'must have'. NOT THE 'rarest/limited'. Go look up the word collector in the dictionary, that should give you some clue ( http://www.thefreedi....com/collection ), but then you already know, you are just choosing to ignore it because it suits you.

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

While the "Limited Edition" Falcon's are clearly more valuable than the regular UCS Falcon, they are both still collectors items.  While the other versions may not have a 1 of XXXX label on them, they are made in smaller supply than all System sets, including the ones that say Limited Edition on them just because they're sold at certain stores.  I believe you have fallen for the common misconception that limited edition has to be labeled or numbered as such.

I agree, they are both collectors items. no, I have not fallen for a 'limited edition misconception'. ( http://www.thefreedi...limited edition ) But again, you are choosing to ignore this because it suits you. OFC they are made in a smaller supply, because of their focused market and high price, but they are always available just as much as any other system set while it is still in production for their (average) 2 year production life.

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

You underestimate the selfishness/pride of collectors.  The vast majority do NOT want everyone else to have one.  They buy them because they are detailed and expensive enough that few would buy them, and then will one day increase in value.  Most people don't want something on display that everyone else has. If everyone has one, then what's the point?  

Uhm, Id like to point out that may be YOUR view, but you do NOT know nor speak for everyone. Sure some may agree, but some will not. I wasn't talking about the selfish people, I was talking about the collectors that buy sets for the love of Lego, not elitism or profiteering.
'They buy them because they are detailed and' That is fact, the rest of your sentence is opinion and situational. I bought my 10212 because I love it as a model and the high detail/near minifig size. Not because it will increase in resale value nor because few others will have it.

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

There would also be a lot of people that spent a bunch of money on the aftermarket to buy older UCS sets just because they want the ship and would be enraged if TLG announced a month later they were remaking those sets.  TLG has never said the UCS line would be one-and-done but many people assume that's what it means when they buy the sets.

I have no problem whether they do or don't. I've accepted and am happy I won't have some/most UCS sets. So as for those people who jump on the 'I don't get why you feel obliged to have a re-issued/designed one' bandwagon, drop it. That is not my concern. But it would be my own fault if I were to invest in one purely for profitable purposes or if I decided to pay a huge marked up priced one. Just look at the re-release of the Shadow ARF trooper in promotion. Hadn't been done before, but now it has. That's the risk. YOUR risk, which puts YOU 100% accountable if it works out, or if it doesn't.
Example: Prices of houses. But I'm sorry, I'm going way off topic and that example has nothing to do with this so you would point out, even though it is relevant to pointing out the truth in what my 'on topic sentence' says.

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

A redesign would affect the value of the previous set.  You can see it happen with Lego System sets, once the new version of a ship comes out the old ship heavily decreases in value.  Perhaps in the future the older version will increase in value again, but there will be an immediate noticeable devaluing of any UCS ship that is replaced.  Some people just want a large MF and if reissued, they wouldn't have to spend $1000+ on the used market.  Yes, it would not affect the Limited Edition MF's collectors, but their market is completely different than the people who just want a UCS ship to display and will pay more than retail for it.

Lego isn't sold by TLG for aftermarkets, nor do they care for it, that is a by-product. AND a gamble. If those people want to make money, they take the risk with it. If it pays off, they get their profit. If it doesn't, no one has wronged them, their gamble just didn't pay off. THAT IS THEIR CHOICE and they must live with it regardless. Why is that so hard to see?

StoutFiles, on 24 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

I don't own the X-wing, or the Falcon, and would love to have them both.  However, I would prefer that when I buy any future UCS set that it will stay unique forever and be the largest version TLG has attempted.

They are not unique, they will NEVER... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique .
They are minimally produced/purchased compared to system sets, thus less available *after production*. And no, I have not just contradicted myself, I stated *after* production.
I have neither too, but I am also happy to not have them.

Edited by Fuppylodders, 24 March 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Lyichir]

mutley777, on 24 March 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I really don't get why people who missed these sets just can't except it! They go on about other sets for the star wars line being re-released but these sets are not like other sets. The clue is in the name people Ultimate Collectors Series. It is not called that for nothing. Now if it was called the Casual Collectors Series then maybe these points would be valid .

These sets are sold as exclusive sets with mainly high prices that only serious collectors can afford, so once the sale figures drop off the set is discontinued for that reason. Not so the after sales market can now profit. The UCS Star Destroyer was available for almost 6 years as there was the demand for the set. People also seem to for get that the UCS Falcon was available for 2 and a half years but was one of the first ever sets to do pre-orders with a 6 month wait too! That almost killed me!

It's not just about people who missed out on the sets not being able to accept it. I am the proud owner of a UCS X-Wing. And to be honest, it looks like crap even compared to the UCS Y-Wing that came out only four years later. Some collectors care about more than the numerical value of a set: there's the aesthetic value to consider, as well. There's a reason I worked hard to rebuild my UCS Y-Wing but am content leaving the X-Wing in pieces.

[b4p]

Lyichir, on 24 March 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

I am the proud owner of a UCS X-Wing. And to be honest, it looks like crap even compared to the UCS Y-Wing

Good point; I dont really like the UCS X-Wing or Star Destroyer.  I would be interested in both if they were redesigned, but right now they are below average IMO, which is a shame for such iconic ships.  Plus how many years should go by before it's OK for them to re-design these?  I hope people change their minds in 40 years from now.  A bunch of old grampas sitting around complaining about how the new X-Wing is going to soil their old memories.

[Thego]

If they redesigned and released new versions of the UCS models, does that mean we'd have to retrospectively rename the original series the Penultimate Collector's Series?

[Fuppylodders]

That is a very good and valid point... It would depend on the intended interpretation of the word ultimate by TLG!

[Mr Man]

Thego, on 24 March 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

If they redesigned and released new versions of the UCS models, does that mean we'd have to retrospectively rename the original series the Penultimate Collector's Series?

[mrklaw]

yes, they should update and release new versions of the more popular UCS models - X-wing, Falcon and Star Destroyer, using the newer pieces and techniques they've developed since they were originally released (especially the X-wing and Star Destroyer)

I'd buy all three instantly. It doesn't stop the originals being collectors items, but there are a lot more new people into lego now that weren't around when they were first issued, so I think there would be a clear market for redesigns.

[mutley777]

mrklaw, on 26 March 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

yes, they should update and release new versions of the more popular UCS models - X-wing, Falcon and Star Destroyer, using the newer pieces and techniques they've developed since they were originally released (especially the X-wing and Star Destroyer)

I'd buy all three instantly. It doesn't stop the originals being collectors items, but there are a lot more new people into lego now that weren't around when they were first issued, so I think there would be a clear market for redesigns.

Not really a good point as you would alienate the collectors/customers that have been with them from the begining by almost forcing them to buy a very similar expensive set again.

[legofett990]

In my opinion, updated versions of older UCS sets would most certainly be a good thing- for example the TIE Interceptor featured blue accents on the older version (!) and the X-Wing is looking very dated. The SW ships date easily with new techniques and new bricks frequently being introduced to improve the quality of the line as a whole, which is why older sets aren't viewed as classics in the same way as for example Black Seas Barracuda is. This, in addition to the rapidly expanding AFOL community who have not had a chance to get their hands on sets such as the Star Destroyer and MF would provide an excellent reason to re-release tired sets, but only when necessary. I also subscribe to the view that if collectors cherish their sets for the value in that particular design, then they won't be alienated by newer sets, and if they are then they are more likely to buy every set anyway and thus continue the hobby.

[Fuppylodders]

mutley777, on 26 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

by almost forcing them to buy a very similar expensive set again.

Im not quite sure I understand how it almost forces them?
No one forces them or almost forces them to do anything. If anything, if they get it, then it brings them together because they have apparently 'been forced' to buy something that others did not originally have giving them something in common with those that have only the re-design version. They collect whatever Lego sets they want. If someone wishes to include sets of the multiple variations in their LSW collection then they have already accepted and have no reason to complain about a re-design just because of the first three letters. If they don't like it, then they don't have to buy it. It is entirely their prerogative to buy or not to buy one and to blame someone else for 'making/forcing them to buy it 'just because it is released' is entirely a weak/worthless excuse, in my opinion.

Edited by Fuppylodders, 26 March 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[b4p]

mutley777, on 26 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

you would alienate the collectors/customers that have been with them from the begining by almost forcing them to buy a very similar expensive set again.

proof that you are wrong:
http://www.apple.com/