VBBN

[PRESS RELEASE] 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bartybum said:

While I'm loving how this set looks, if there's anything to be complaining about it's the price, which is a direct result of TLC deciding to make a 1.1m long model - it's just unnecessarily WAY too big to be affordable by the majority.

With exception to the Falcon, UCS ships shouldn't be longer than 80cm; any more just isn't affordable. I wanna dabble in UCS one day, but I'm not interested in forking out a thousand dollars for some grey plates.

If they ever decide to do a UCS Venator, it's gotta be in an affordable size.

With UCS you get the detail. The SSD level of detail was perfect for the scale of the model. 

I’m actually starting to wonder if the size of this UCS was actually dictated by the mini Tantive IV included. The proportions look spot on especially in the pictures of it in the hold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SquirrelArmy said:

With UCS you get the detail. The SSD level of detail was perfect for the scale of the model. 

I’m actually starting to wonder if the size of this UCS was actually dictated by the mini Tantive IV included. The proportions look spot on especially in the pictures of it in the hold. 

Thing is, this model's detail could've probably been done in a smaller scale. It's Lego, there's always a smaller piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SquirrelArmy said:

I’m actually starting to wonder if the size of this UCS was actually dictated by the mini Tantive IV included. The proportions look spot on especially in the pictures of it in the hold. 

I doubt it. There have been a couple of other similar sized Tantive IVs (Planets series, advent calendar) and shaving even one stud (so about 10%) off the length could have reduced the size of this significantly if that was the case.

The cost will hit sales, as will the size. I really wonder how many people have the room to display it. The Falcon is more displayable in terms of orientation (you can stand it upright on a flat surface or display it on the wall) and there are some nice "coffee table" style display cabinets. I wonder what people will do with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet, always like Star Destroyers.

If I keep it MSIB in the box, I'll have to room to display it.  Built out of the box, not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JimDude said:

 

You know, looking at the interior in the video, it doesn't look all that sturdy. Whenever I see big voids inside a model covered only by huge, flat panels, I worry. A lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SteamSewnEmpire said:

You know, looking at the interior in the video, it doesn't look all that sturdy. Whenever I see big voids inside a model covered only by huge, flat panels, I worry. A lot. 

But such an easy fix. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

But such an easy fix. 

At this price point, I kinda feel like I shouldn't have to 'fix' anything.  

Don't get me wrong, I have spent more than my fair share on pricy Lego sets in the past so the sticker price alone isn't really something I'm going to complain about, but the price per piece seems way off.  I'll reserve judgement until we get an official weight on this thing to see if the price per weight is more in line with a licensed set with no lights or motors and just a few figures.  I already have the first one from 17 years ago, that one had plenty of long technic beams and large plates and still stayed _under_ the 10 cents a part threshold (and the old one had over two dozen black magnet cylinders (about $2 each on Bricklink these days),  so I'd like to see some real value added for 50% more parts and nearly 3x the price. 

From what I've seen so far this set is nice, maybe $500 (USD) nice, compared to its predecessor, but for me the jury is still out on "$700 nice"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Star Destroyer's price per weight is actually worse compared to the falcon, it being 116.7/kg and falcon being 115.9/kg. The price per volume is a little better on the destroyer, 0.002/cm, while the falcon is at 0.0075/cm. (Feel free to correct me if I got the "pers" mixed up). What do you guys think? 

Edited by FilthyFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Destroyers are such a badass designed spaceships. That promotional photography is also very well done. With the shades and such. Looks just like they are the real models used for the films. 

700 is way out of my budget, but if i was rich, i would buy three and make a great space diorama or something like that (with great light effects to catch that space star wars shade)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
8 hours ago, SquirrelArmy said:

I’m actually starting to wonder if the size of this UCS was actually dictated by the mini Tantive IV included. The proportions look spot on especially in the pictures of it in the hold. 

In the designer video he actually mentions that the entire scale was dictated by the "perfect element" he selected as the underside radar dome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else concerned about this sudden trend towards unaffordable UCS sets? Within recent memory, the higher-priced of these collector's models were a few hundred bucks. That's still a lot for what amounts to plastic, but it was still generally in line with, say, high quality injection-molded ship or tank fine-scale models, or a DCC & sound equipped model railroad locomotive. This Star Destroyer, however, is in a different class.

I like Lego, and I'm an adult professional. But I cannot justify $700 for something like this. It's the difference between a luxury and an excess for me. It was one thing when the Millennium Falcon came out, and it was a very good value per-part and an extremely iconic ship that you could write off as a one-off. But this set just made it a pattern... and - the set's flaws (as I perceive them) notwithstanding - it's pricing me right out of the game.

Edited by SteamSewnEmpire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dr_spock said:

Sweet, always like Star Destroyers.

If I keep it MSIB in the box, I'll have to room to display it.  Built out of the box, not so much. 

Yeah, I currently live in a small work supplied house, although my partner and I do own our own 4 bedroom house which we rent out. When I bought the Falcon I thought I'd have to wait until we finally move house to build it, but the Efferman Stand changed my mind to build it.. Maybe I'll buy this and store it, and build it one day in my retirement like the old chaps do with their miniature railroad displays, lol..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have expressed concern on how sturdy it looks from being so hollow, do you think this would support the weight of adding extra tiles to smooth it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Frizzlefry25 said:

For those who have expressed concern on how sturdy it looks from being so hollow, do you think this would support the weight of adding extra tiles to smooth it up?

The rigidity of the shell seems to derived from layering large plates, so adding tiles would probably enhance its strength.

The problem I foresee with the design is moving it at all. Even picking up this model in the wrong way may prove fatal.

Edited by SteamSewnEmpire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

The rigidity of the shell seems to derived from layering large plates, so adding tiles would probably enhance its strength.

The problem I foresee with the design is moving it at all. Even picking up this model in the wrong way may prove fatal.

And yet the designer video he stated that he designed it to be moved for dusting etc! Heres hoping he is right! But when he touched it, it sure seemed to move alot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

Is anyone else concerned about this sudden trend towards unaffordable UCS sets?

Honestly? I am not, let people buy what they want for money they have!

But I do believe that the UCS series, as everything that goes into that direction - price wise and idea wise - is the contrary of the idea of "imagination" and "creativity" - the original idea of LEGO. It is much more so the idea of being accurate, detailed, as close as possible to the original - using studded bricks. That is ... weird. The ultimate approach would be to build the model that large, that you don't recognize the studs anymore - or use large, very large tiles. And the more it goes into that direction, the more it becomes meaningless for me. Why use studded bricks at all for accomplishing that? What is the idea? Stainless steel or the like would be way more appropriate! 

Putting things on display - fine with me, really.

But wasn't the end of the story in one of the LEGO movies to ... play with the bricks? And be creative? And not glue them together?

Whatever.

Let's see when they break the 1k sound barrier. I believe, we're close. It will be one kind of a boom! 

Best
Thorsten

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing looking model - the best “official” ISD yet.

 

For those balking at the price - yes £650 / $700 is expensive, but before now your only option for an official ISD model approaching this scale was to give a scalper £900/$1000+ for 10030, which has 30% fewer pieces, doesn’t look as good and isn’t as structurally sound as this one..

 

Personally it doesn't seem so bad to me when you look at it like that, and I’ll def be adding it to my collection :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Toastie said:

But I do believe that the UCS series, as everything that goes into that direction - price wise and idea wise - is the contrary of the idea of "imagination" and "creativity" - the original idea of LEGO. It is much more so the idea of being accurate, detailed, as close as possible to the original - using studded bricks. That is ... weird. The ultimate approach would be to build the model that large, that you don't recognize the studs anymore - or use large, very large tiles. And the more it goes into that direction, the more it becomes meaningless for me. Why use studded bricks at all for accomplishing that? What is the idea? Stainless steel or the like would be way more appropriate! 

Best
Thorsten

 

Its an interesting point,...and in principle I agree. The thing is the Star Wars Star Destroyers surface, were always irregular and rough. Lumps, bumps and panel lines show a surface with a heap of detail.

For the scale,...Lego had no hope of replicating that. So I do get leaving the surface predominately with studs. Its a display piece,....so from a distance I am guessing it looks quite realistic. You could cover it with stickers,...….but people would complain it would be too flat and too 2 dimension like.

But,..at the end of the day,...like many models (plastic, Diecast, Lego), the finish is in the eye of the beholder and its quite subjective. There really is no right or wrong answer. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

Is anyone else concerned about this sudden trend towards unaffordable UCS sets? Within recent memory, the higher-priced of these collector's models were a few hundred bucks. That's still a lot for what amounts to plastic, but it was still generally in line with, say, high quality injection-molded ship or tank fine-scale models, or a DCC & sound equipped model railroad locomotive. This Star Destroyer, however, is in a different class.

I like Lego, and I'm an adult professional. But I cannot justify $700 for something like this. It's the difference between a luxury and an excess for me. It was one thing when the Millennium Falcon came out, and it was a very good value per-part and an extremely iconic ship that you could write off as a one-off. But this set just made it a pattern... and - the set's flaws (as I perceive them) notwithstanding - it's pricing me right out of the game.

You’re not the only one. I remember a bunch of people worrying about the precedent the Falcon would set for future UCS.

Size will always come at the cost of everything else due to the cubic law, and imo it’s not worth it. I can make a case for the Falcon because it was a cult classic, but I’d have been MUCH happier with an 80cm ISD because at least then I could afford it, and possibly have somewhere to put it. I got flak for voicing that, but people seem to forget that 80cm is still really big and easily appropriate for UCS. And because of the cubic law, it’d only take roughly half as much Lego to produce.

57 minutes ago, Toastie said:

I am not, let people buy what they want for money they have!

But he never said people shouldn’t buy it, he just said he’s unhappy with what he sees as a setting precedent. “Let people do what they want” is totally the wrong argument here because no arguments against that were ever being made.

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MAB said:

It is strange, people often complain that LEGO puts desirable and exclusive minifigures in large and expensive sets. This time, they have put in two not so desirable figures and look at what happens.

It should really be the ship that sells rather than the minifigures on a set of this size. I'm glad they didn't put in half a dozen exclusive and desirable figures.

I really don't get the people who complain about desirable and exclusive minifigures in expensive sets. Exclusive figures should be in expensive or special sets to enhance a set. And I always thought that LEGO always does great (except Marvel) with figures in their sets (the amount and quality is just good enough). Now with the UCS ISD I feel like should have come with a couple more like an extra crewman and another officer since the price is so high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Evergreen said:

I really don't get the people who complain about desirable and exclusive minifigures in expensive sets. Exclusive figures should be in expensive or special sets to enhance a set. And I always thought that LEGO always does great (except Marvel) with figures in their sets (the amount and quality is just good enough). Now with the UCS ISD I feel like should have come with a couple more like an extra crewman and another officer since the price is so high. 

One that might have been interesting would be a unique Thrawn and Pellaeon combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely an aesthetic improvement over the old 10030 and it looks fantastic, but lets do some comparing here:

10030 - 2002 Release, 3096 pieces, $298 retail.  9.6 cents pp

75252 - 2019 Release, 4784, $699 retail.  14.6 cents pp. 

They're pretty close to the same size, so it's not as if the new one has tons of extra huge pieces.  I just don't see the justification for such a huge increase in price.  The falcon got you a legitimately nice interior and a slew of minifigs; it's the holy grail of Star Wars.  If you're going to shell out that kind of money, I think taking a look at Onecase's Monarch is worth your consideration. 

But again, a very nice set and I'm happy for those who are excited to get it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Toastie said:

Let's see when they break the 1k sound barrier. I believe, we're close. It will be one kind of a boom! 

 

As in a set with a $1000 price tag? The UCS Falcon already broke that, and this one is $1100. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.