Lyichir

Redesigning old UCS sets

Recommended Posts

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.

I think this is artificial reasoning and besides the point. Lego called the sets "UCS", "Ultimate Collectors Set", implicitly promising and therefore creating the expectation that this set will remain exclusive.

I do not believe, though, that a redesign of older UCS sets cannot be justified. The relevant reference system, though, is the original buyer and still-owner of the sets. The question is to what degree Lego's credibility would suffer from such a policy, and that's why I think that Lego will avoid a situation leading to a discussion about precisely this point by releasing other models in the UCS line, which is equivalent to not remaking older sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only my opinion, but I wouldn't like redesigns, for a simple reason. I think there are still some nice opportunities to make something from the SW movies into a nice model, and I very much like the idea to always get something new. UCS is aimed at grown-ups and if you missed the X or Y, get it on Ebay if you want it that much. Or build it with the pieces you have. It makes sense to have updates for the System sets cause of the different customers, but not for UCS. I will change my opinion in 10 years from now, but for now I would appreciate it to have new models in the UCS garage all the time. It's a series, that doesn't care about yellow or flesh, simple parts or flick fires, more variability in colours and pieces - and it's not for boys who grow in and out of the theme in a couple of years. It's a series not respecting all these, and for that I like it.

I think the R2 this year is a sweet idea and I would be happy to see an ETA starfighter, a LAAT/i, a Venator, a Speederbike with Scout, a Rebel Medium Transport etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, I tried building a UCS X-Wing in the early 90s and I would love to see a better version. But once, here, I would vote for something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is artificial reasoning and besides the point. Lego called the sets "UCS", "Ultimate Collectors Set", implicitly promising and therefore creating the expectation that this set will remain exclusive.

The thing is, if we look at the definition of the word 'ultimate':

1. conclusive in a series or process; last; final

2. the highest or most significant

3. elemental, fundamental, basic, or essential

4. most extreme

5. final or total

The X-Wing has been used as an example only and is not solely applicable to these, however gives the best example.

1) conclusive in which series? The series of UCS Vehicles? In which case, a series of 'ultimate' vehicles contradicts itself by definition. Conclusive in the line of type of vehicle made, ie X wing 4502, 7140, 7191 (ucs), 9493? Clearly not, because there is another released after the UCS.

2) Most significant? Seems to fit because it is the biggest and/or most detailed, which implies it doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive.

3)fundamental/primarily... Doesn't really fit as it isn't basic, or the first.

4) Most extreme... Well, it is the biggest and most detailed version, seems to fit.

5)Final, well, it wasn't the final X-wing made because they recently released 9493, after the UCS version.

Applying the definitions to the circumstances already given to us by TLG, I conclude (although others may disagree, and if you do, please do correct me :classic: ) there is no implicit promise of, and that the definition falls under points 2 and 4, which rule out exclusivity, but direct towards the biggest version with the most significant detail.

I do however, entirely agree with your second statement brickadeer. Personally, I think I would prefer they keep kicking out new ones than redesigns due to the small amount of UCS sets released compared to the variation of system sets.

Edited by Fuppylodders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, if we look at the definition of the word 'ultimate':

1. conclusive in a series or process; last; final

2. the highest or most significant

3. elemental, fundamental, basic, or essential

4. most extreme

5. final or total

The X-Wing has been used as an example only and is not solely applicable to these, however gives the best example.

1) conclusive in which series? The series of UCS Vehicles? In which case, a series of 'ultimate' vehicles contradicts itself by definition. Conclusive in the line of type of vehicle made, ie X wing 4502, 7140, 7191 (ucs), 9493? Clearly not, because there is another released after the UCS.

2) Most significant? Seems to fit because it is the biggest and/or most detailed, which implies it doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive.

3)fundamental/primarily... Doesn't really fit as it isn't basic, or the first.

4) Most extreme... Well, it is the biggest and most detailed version, seems to fit.

5)Final, well, it wasn't the final X-wing made because they recently released 9493, after the UCS version.

Applying the definitions to the circumstances already given to us by TLG, I conclude (although others may disagree, and if you do, please do correct me :classic: ) there is no implicit promise of, and that the definition falls under points 2 and 4, which rule out exclusivity, but direct towards the biggest version with the most significant detail.

I do however, entirely agree with your second statement brickadeer. Personally, I think I would prefer they keep kicking out new ones than redesigns due to the small amount of UCS sets released compared to the variation of system sets.

I do not think that this is primarily about definitions. As I'd put it, the world simply doesn't do us the favour to act due to our abitrary defintions: if we are hit by a car driving with 150 miles per hour, there's a pretty good chance that we are pretty dead, no matter how we defined the situation and no matter what we thought should or would happen. To some degree, the world so to say acts independently of our reasoning. My point is that whatever you or I or whoever thinks "UCS" means, doesn't matter; what's relevant is what majority of people thinks it means or should mean, and how Lego's reputation is affected by giving it a different meaning.

Of course we can discuss the question what it should mean, but that's equivalent to the question what Lego should do.

As for your statement that there is no implicit promise in the term, I beg to differ. It's quite and simply not how some people perceive the situation. Of course you may argue that these people are simply wrong and should not understand "the promise of UCS" as they did, but that's equivalent of arguing that the world shouldn't behave as it does, which may not be a good guide to understanding how the world functions since, as I said, it acts independently of our definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every body deserves to own a redesign model of an unavailable vehicle, redesigning a vehicle doesnt mean that the actual model is no longer unique or less collectable, with all the new building techniques we could have some very nice sets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

proof that you are wrong:

http://www.apple.com/

Congratulations for the most stupid argument ever! :laugh:

I really don't understand why people don't get that the UCS sets are collectables! They are even marketed that way!

As for my forcing them comment, it was if you want a customer to collect your exclusive collection, then you don't start re-releaseing items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand why people don't get that the UCS sets are collectables! They are even marketed that way!

Yes, they are collectables and as such I agree they shouldn't be released again without being built from scratch using modern techniques and bricks, thereby creating a totally different model of the same craft. The collectable minifigures are also collectable (as evidenced in the series name), but will that stop TLG from releasing a spartan or a roman in a future set? Do you think it should? :sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are collectables and as such I agree they shouldn't be released again without being built from scratch using modern techniques and bricks, thereby creating a totally different model of the same craft. The collectable minifigures are also collectable (as evidenced in the series name), but will that stop TLG from releasing a spartan or a roman in a future set? Do you think it should? :sceptic:

Ah yes but re-releasing a single minifigure that was £2 (in the UK) and re-releaseing a set which a collector paid £350 (Falcon, again UK) are to very differnt things, aren't they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes but re-releasing a single minifigure that was £2 (in the UK) and re-releaseing a set which a collector paid £350 (Falcon, again UK) are to very differnt things, aren't they.

They are, but the underlying principle remains the same. Also, there is no need to re-release the falcon at this moment in time- things haven't progressed far enough in the world of Lego to provide a significant improvement upon the previous one. The X-Wing however looks in desperate need of a re-do, as I think has been previously mentioned, the current system X-Wing could even be considered superior to the UCS version. If you look at it that way, the UCS is no longer the single 'definitive' Lego X-Wing, in the way that the Falcon is. This surely is what defines the UCS series? I don't feel there should be repetitive releases of UCS sets in the same way there has been of X-Wings, Falcons etc in system scale, just that if one can be improved upon to such a degree that it makes it worthwhile releasing a new set, I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are, but the underlying principle remains the same. Also, there is no need to re-release the falcon at this moment in time- things haven't progressed far enough in the world of Lego to provide a significant improvement upon the previous one. The X-Wing however looks in desperate need of a re-do, as I think has been previously mentioned, the current system X-Wing could even be considered superior to the UCS version. If you look at it that way, the UCS is no longer the single 'definitive' Lego X-Wing, in the way that the Falcon is. This surely is what defines the UCS series? I don't feel there should be repetitive releases of UCS sets in the same way there has been of X-Wings, Falcons etc in system scale, just that if one can be improved upon to such a degree that it makes it worthwhile releasing a new set, I'm all for it.

I don't think it does.

The collectable minifigures series is placed so to say outside of any official line like Ninjago, Duplo, Friends, Star Wars etc. They can be used in certain settings, though, but they are not related to certain settings. They are collectable, but they can be used for different purposes than collecting.

A lot of the earlier Star Wars UCS modells, however, can't be integrated into the Star Wars series simply they are not built in the minifig size. Basically, they can be nothing but collected. Of course that's not true for all them, but for a couple of them, like the X-Wing, the Tie-Interceptor or the Snowspeeder.

Besides that, the collectable minifigures are not meant to be "ultimate".

I do not agree, however, that 9493 looks more "x-wingish" than its UCS counterpart. That may have been the case if the engines and the windscreen would have been redesigned, though :classic:

Edited by Brickadeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations for the most stupid argument ever! :laugh:

I really don't understand why people don't get that the UCS sets are collectables! They are even marketed that way!

As for my forcing them comment, it was if you want a customer to collect your exclusive collection, then you don't start re-releaseing items.

Exactly how I feel.

Some people pay a lot of money for UCS sets under the assumption that they are going to stay unique. Buy now or pay a boatload later. They have stayed that way for 10+ years and there's enough material out there that they could stay that way for at least 10 more. Yes, you will make a lot of people very happy releasing old sets, but the majority of collectors will feel alienated that the line stagnates to remake old sets instead of pressing forward to new sets. I want to see a Cloud Car, an A-wing, a Nebulon-B, etc. I don't want them remaking the Falcon, X-wing, Y-wing, etc for years to come.

As for old UCS sets looking old, you're always allowed to MOC part of it to fix it. Every UCS set has been improved upon, even the most recent ones.

Note this is just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own, but as of now we have no idea what TLG do with the UCS line down the road. They could continue on like they have been, or they could start remaking sets. A lot of that depends on how well the line continues to do and how long they can keep the SW license.

Edited by StoutFiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly how I feel.

1) Some people pay a lot of money for UCS sets under the assumption that they are going to stay unique.

2) They have stayed that way for 10+ years and there's enough material out there that they could stay that way for at least 10 more.

3) but the majority of collectors will feel alienated that the line stagnates to remake old sets instead of pressing forward to new sets. I want to see a Cloud Car, an A-wing, a Nebulon-B, etc. I don't want them remaking the Falcon, X-wing, Y-wing, etc for years to come.

4) As for old UCS sets looking old, you're always allowed to MOC part of it to fix it. Every UCS set has been improved upon, even the most recent ones.

@1) Lots of people assuming doesn't necessarily mean TLG have to suddenly stick to something because it is assumed to be so. Assuming is often incorrect (as much as it also can be correct)

2) Yup, I do agree with this point totally.

3) I see where you mean alienated because of the line stagnating to look back, although, it perhaps means they can get a more modern updated (perhaps better) version, or have the choice of not getting it and saving money for other SW sets. So I personally can see it alienating to a point, but also bringing people together/giving huge LSW collectors a break.

4) Best thing about lego, it can easily be modified! Totally agreed!

I wrote to TLG asking for a 'clear' version of their understanding of what UCS means to them. Here are their 2 responses:

1)Regarding your request about the term 'Ultimate Collectors Series', unfortunately I must admit that I am not sure about it, so I have forwarded it to our LEGO product specialist. Once he gets back to me, I will provide you with his solution.

2)Here is an answer that might help you from our product specialist.

The Ultimate Collector's Series or "UCS" is a subtheme of large sets. They are predominantly under the Star Wars bracket, but there is also one Batman set in the theme. The "UCS" sets are meant to be more detailed and aimed at older builders. These sets do not generally include Minifigures, but there are some cases (such as 10195 Republic Dropship with AT-OT Walker) where the set is completely compatible. Ultimate Collector's Series sets tend to be larger, more detailed, and more expensive than typical sets.

Of course, it may well be possible I might have got a different answer if a different member of the same team replied instead of the person/s that did reply to me, but this particular response gives an insight into their reasoning/intentions behind the UCS sets. I did also ask specifically about whether they are meant to be exclusive sets, although nothing was stated about this in their response, so it is left open ended, and I can only assume people can draw their own conclusions whatever they may be, from this :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i assume anything is possible after the whole bley thing. thanks for actually asking them directly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, it may well be possible I might have got a different answer if a different member of the same team replied instead of the person/s that did reply to me, but this particular response gives an insight into their reasoning/intentions behind the UCS sets. I did also ask specifically about whether they are meant to be exclusive sets, although nothing was stated about this in their response, so it is left open ended, and I can only assume people can draw their own conclusions whatever they may be, from this :wacko:

I'm thinking that even TLG isn't 100% sure on where the UCS line will take them. Thanks for sharing the response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like UCS for what they are : detailed, accurate, and well designed models.

However, I really do not care of the value of my collection as I will never sell it.

And to be honnest, I would really lough if for any reason, the value of the UCS collapse !

But a big decrease in their value would prevent some seller from speculating and selling Lego collector sets at very very high prices.

I would really enjoy such a situation. Mocking the speculators I something fun to me. :p

As for 7191, it is IMO among the best UCS models (great features, good shapes, awesome colors ; some red parts could just be turned into dark red parts, ok). It is very well designed.

You will convince me that this model now suck when someone will do a better X-Wing that 7191.

Till today, nobody succeed to do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2)Here is an answer that might help you from our product specialist.

The Ultimate Collector's Series or "UCS" is a subtheme of large sets. They are predominantly under the Star Wars bracket, but there is also one Batman set in the theme. The "UCS" sets are meant to be more detailed and aimed at older builders. These sets do not generally include Minifigures, but there are some cases (such as 10195 Republic Dropship with AT-OT Walker) where the set is completely compatible. Ultimate Collector's Series sets tend to be larger, more detailed, and more expensive than typical sets.

My experience is that Lego "product specialists" are not very specialized in the product they support.

Brickipedia says the following about UCS:

The Ultimate Collector's Series or "UCS" is a subtheme of large sets. They are predominantly under the Star Wars bracket, but there is also one Batman set in the theme. The "UCS" sets are meant to be more detailed and aimed at older builders. These sets do not generally include Minifigures, but there are some cases (such as 10195 Republic Dropship with AT-OT Walker) where the set is completely compatible. Ultimate Collector's Series sets tend to be larger, more detailed, and more expensive than typical sets. In some cases, they also tend to be known to have 5 digits, which is technically not true (such as the 7181 TIE Interceptor, which only has 4 digits).

So I think that both source refer to a common source, or that the product specialist made his copy & paste move.

Edited by Brickadeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

As a diehard UCS man the prospect of a re-release would bore me (sorry). As many have quite rightly already stated the fact remains plenty of designs and ideas for other UCS sets remain to be explored. So what's the point with a re-release?

New techniques and bricks!

Hardly, new techniques and bricks are applied to new UCS sets anyway which begs the question 'why cover old territory'?

TLC could attract new collectors with a brand new old set! Also some present collectors want re-releases because they missed out and can't afford secondary markets. Finally, some want an up-graded design because they feel the old one isn't up-to-scratch!

Maybe...

However, the problem I have with these statements are they underestimate the value companies place on 'brand' loyalty and the existing 'mean' of that brand's consumer base. Risking the brand with a radical strategic rethink could only come about if the product concept was failing and for UCS it quite obviously isn't. 10 years have shown it to be a fairly consistent and popular product among AFOLs and that's a big deal! A formula which works!

Reading this thread also reveals a strong message i.e. even though loyal collectors might not mind a new X-Wing (and would probably buy it) in actual fact many would rather see a completely new set first!

Bingo!!

I'd say there's your main consumer base right there and why it ain't worth Lego upsetting the apple cart.

Would it be a good move to take advantage of the many advances in LEGO designs over the past decade...

A 'good' move?

Our discussion indicates it would alienate some, possibly attract others, definitely be controversial and (I would hazard to guess) probably do little to significantly influence sales figures. This seems to imply more risk than gain. So again what's the point? Especially given these 'new' consumers would probably have bought a UCS regardless of it being a re-release or not.

So I'd call it a 'strange' move...

... or would it devalue and violate the sanctity of these classic models?

Yes.

You can't label something 'Ultimate Collector's Series' and expect people not to 'value' their purchase accordingly (and each in a very personal way). You can try and define each of those words in isolation and test their flexibility but this logic amounts to 'word play' that ignores the 'explicit' meaning of the entire title and all associated prestige 'implicitly' attached to it and every one of its models.

Admittedly I can envisage Lego releasing a new version of the UCS X-Wing in a decades time but only to cap off the UCS line and entire Star Wars license. I've always suspected 10179 may have been conceived of in a similar fashion given Lucasfilm rights for Lego were meant to have originally expired back in 2007. A second X-Wing as a final ever UCS would give closure to the collectors journey over some twenty years in a way no other set could...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try and define each of those words in isolation and test their flexibility but this logic amounts to 'word play' that ignores the 'explicit' meaning of the entire title and all associated prestige 'implicitly' attached to it and every one of its models.

You can't disregard the definitions of words and then state that they have an explicit meaning of something else.

We talk because words have a meaning. Particular words are used at particular times because of their various/particular meanings. These meanings are behind our very use of the words. You can not suddenly ignore the actual definitions to make up your own meaning and call it an 'explicit' meaning. You are totally contradicting the use of any form of communication of language by doing so.

Thats like me saying 'The sky of a sunny day is black' when it is blue in appearance by definition.

By your logic, definitions of words are irrelevant entirely.

In which case, I'll read into it making up my own definitions of your own used words and come to the conclusion you are agreeing with me ^_^

*edit* added:

I would like to add though, throughout this thread/discussion, my opinion has been altered, initially from 'I would like to see redesigns' to, Im not against them, however I would much prefer they keep releasing new ones, as they are limited in the amount of different UCS sets they release which means it would be longer to release a new one if they revisited an old one. So, I'm not being stubborn, I am just stating my perception of peoples misunderstanding/mislead expectations of the 3 letters 'UCS'.

Edited by Fuppylodders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't disregard the definitions of words and then state that they have an explicit meaning of something else.

We talk because words have a meaning. Particular words are used at particular times because of their various/particular meanings. These meanings are behind our very use of the words. You can not suddenly ignore the actual definitions to make up your own meaning and call it an 'explicit' meaning. You are totally contradicting the use of any form of communication of language by doing so.

Thats like me saying 'The sky of a sunny day is black' when it is blue in appearance by definition.

By your logic, definitions of words are irrelevant entirely.

In which case, I'll read into it making up my own definitions of your own used words and come to the conclusion you are agreeing with me ^_^

*edit* added:

I would like to add though, throughout this thread/discussion, my opinion has been altered, initially from 'I would like to see redesigns' to, Im not against them, however I would much prefer they keep releasing new ones, as they are limited in the amount of different UCS sets they release which means it would be longer to release a new one if they revisited an old one. So, I'm not being stubborn, I am just stating my perception of peoples misunderstanding/mislead expectations of the 3 letters 'UCS'.

Thanks Fuppylodders! I like a Lego topic with a bit more than minifigures on the agenda! :thumbup: That said...

Of course you can disregard the definition of individual words and state they have an 'explicit' meaning of something else when used in context with other words (as we are doing so in this discussion) - such an act of treacherous 'wordsmithing' can be the penultimate point of any phrase or collection of words. For example...

1. Define 'final'

2. Define 'solution'

3. Define 'final solution'

So does the phrase 'final solution' have anything much to do with the definition of any individual words used in it? Of course not. (Hey it's an online discussion! Someone has to bring up Nazis eventually)!!

How about 'War is peace'? Orwell did a great number on that one!

However, using less emotive terminology which conjures up a somewhat more banal euphemism is the Lego marketing term 'Ultimate Collectors Series'.

1. Define 'ultimate'

2. Define 'collector'

3. Define 'series'

4. What does the combination of all these words within an 'entire title' (namely UCS) suggest to the enthusiastic Lego customer? More than the sum of its parts I daresay.

My point was/is that in isolation words have meaning (even strength) yet in phrases they have power. In this case the power to influence buying decisions through the use of a brand name. This is a very clear and 'explicit' intention of Lego and a valuable commodity for it to own and exploit which is why I think it unlikely we'll get a re-release anytime soon. Besides 'words' are just filters for describing our environment, feelings and thoughts, they aren't fixed culturally in time. Their 'meanings' are just seven headed hydras, difficult to grasp, pin down and grope for despite the best efforts of the OED. So it's no surprise UCS means something a little different to many of us posting here.

That being said I hope the entirety of my sentences, paragraphs etc. convey to you all more than the sum of their individual parts, and that I am at least a little clearer than what the 'Ultimate Collectors Series' has come to mean to some but not all of our parts... :wink:

Edited by Aeroeza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that Ultimate Collector Series sells better than Lego Toys For Adults Series or Huge Star Wars Sets Series.

Anyway, given that SW license has been renewed for ten more years, I believe there is a definite possibility that the most iconic subjects like the x-wing or StarDestroyer will be reissued. After all LEGO is not concerned with secondary market value of its sets.

Bye,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Fuppylodders! I like a Lego topic with a bit more than minifigures on the agenda! :thumbup: That said...

1. Define 'final'

2. Define 'solution'

3. Define 'final solution'

So does the phrase 'final solution' have anything much to do with the definition of any individual words used in it? Of course not. (Hey it's an online discussion! Someone has to bring up Nazis eventually)!!

I was worried about getting into a discussion/debate with you as I've seen what you are like when you 'explode' with information :laugh:

@George Orwell, this more shows the close/direct connections of each word's opposite, rather than the words definitions meaning the opposites of the word itself.

1) Something that comes at or forms the end:

2) a. The method or process of solving a problem.

b. The answer to or disposition of a problem.

3)Method that forms the end process of the 'Jewish' problem. (The term was an application to a perceived problem, not an actual problem.)

Would I be correct in saying I just disproved your theory? (If not, can you explain, perhaps in a pm to me, so we don't totally derail this topic :grin: )

From my own (although still vastly limited) knowledge, when a word is used, there is always a varying strength of meaning/definition no matter how far underlying it could be, it will always have some resemblance to one of the meanings...

Edited by Fuppylodders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was worried about getting into a discussion/debate with you as I've seen what you are like when you 'explode' with information :laugh:

:laugh: Don't be! I appreciate the time a considered post takes to write and I hope members enjoy the ride. Being 'right' or 'wrong' in a debate isn't the point for me (although it's nice to be as accurate as possible). It's about all parties learning something along the way... (cue 'lesson of the week' South Park' music), learning things like 'you're not quite as right as I might be!' Or that 'I hope I'm less wrong than I think!!!' :look:

Nahh, seriously I may PM you regarding your last post. It could lead to interesting places. I would however start with why the sky is also 'by definition' actually black on a clear sunny day... :wink:

...back on track!

From my own (although still vastly limited) knowledge, when a word is used, there is always a varying strength of meaning/definition no matter how far underlying it could be, it will always have some resemblance to one of the meanings...

...yet when placed in a sloganistic phrase or belonging contextually within a title it gathers more meaning and contributes greater definition to the whole. This influences the buyer in making their purchase. You can't just look at the definition of 'ultimate' in UCS, divorce it from its marketing context, 10 year history, customer loyalty and trust, then conclude there is no implicit 'exclusivity' in that brand name.

... conclusive in the line of type of vehicle made, ie X wing 4502, 7140, 7191 (ucs), 9493? Clearly not, because there is another released after the UCS.

...Final, well, it wasn't the final X-wing made because they recently released 9493, after the UCS version.

What do any system sets have to do with UCS releases? Why would you mention them out of context and somehow in the same league as 7191? These are rhetorical questions but I hope you get my drift about the sustainability of some of your points...

... I conclude (although others may disagree, and if you do, please do correct me :classic: ) there is no implicit promise of.............exclusivity

I'm just not convinced but I applaud your 'disagree' clause! :thumbup:

I do not think that this is primarily about definitions....

... As for your statement that there is no implicit promise in the term, I beg to differ. It's quite and simply not how some people perceive the situation. Of course you may argue that these people are simply wrong and should not understand "the promise of UCS" as they did, but that's equivalent of arguing that the world shouldn't behave as it does, which may not be a good guide to understanding how the world functions since, as I said, it acts independently of our definitions.

...which makes two of us so I can't be completely mad! :wacko: Especially because it was so eloquently put Brickadeer! :thumbup:

I stated earlier that it would be a 'strange' move for Lego to mess with the range in the way Lyichir is asking us to speculate upon. The types of UCS sets which have been released over a decade say otherwise and have created a product identity which both company and consumer value. Nothing since 2000 suggests Lego is about to change that (not even with the odd minifig thrown in) and wishful thinking, playing with definitions or arguing 'UCS' doesn't necessarily mean what a lot of people 'should' think it means is likely to change a successful marketing strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Snip*

And He's off :laugh:.

Personally, if you missed out get from bricklink, they'll be another UCS along shortly, that you can have and someone in the future will have missed out on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO Mr Man :laugh:

I would however start with why the sky is also 'by definition' actually black on a clear sunny day... :wink:

Hence why I used the colour blue and black. As I stated, blue *in appearance* (further indepth reasoning in the pm I sent back to you ;)... which is why I explicitly stated in appearance, as that is the 'get out clause' of that situation :wink:

*edited out some contextually incorrect information, but the same point still stands*

...yet when placed in a sloganistic phrase or belonging contextually within a title it gathers more meaning and contributes greater definition to the whole. This influences the buyer in making their purchase. You can't just look at the definition of 'ultimate' in UCS, divorce it from its marketing context, 10 year history, customer loyalty and trust, then conclude there is no implicit 'exclusivity' in that brand name.

Yet each word still retains its underlying definition to summarily conclude, as you rightly mentioned in greater definition to the whole. I am not divorcing it form its marketing context, merely taking it through a 'marital guidance councillor' to take it back to basics to understand its fundamental meaning :grin:What the hell are you doing to me, I don't normally type this in depth lol

What do any system sets have to do with UCS releases? Why would you mention them out of context and somehow in the same league as 7191? These are rhetorical questions but I hope you get my drift about the sustainability of some of your points...

I was using them as reasonable examples to find the (in my opinion) intended definition. I do feel that I used them situationally correct and in context, for the circumstance I was trying to explain.

*edit: Perhaps I didn't explain/use my examples in a precise way that could easily be related to the situation I was trying to present*

A 10 year history does only on precedence imply, not by statement nor is it in the name.

The marketing? As something that is by all expectations greater in everything (detail/size[usually] etc). But as exclusive? If you could point me out to where it says/is clearly indicatively marketed they are exclusive in the vehicles used in the UCS line, I shall happily roll over on this one and change my opinion of that case :classic:

I stated earlier that it would be a 'strange' move for Lego to mess with the range in the way Lyichir is asking us to speculate upon. The types of UCS sets which have been released over a decade say otherwise and have created a product identity which both company and consumer value. Nothing since 2000 suggests Lego is about to change that (not even with the odd minifig thrown in) and wishful thinking, playing with definitions or arguing 'UCS' doesn't necessarily mean what a lot of people 'should' think it means is likely to change a successful marketing strategy.

Im not playing with definitions to give an argument for saying that TLG *should* make re-designs etc, I am simply stating that the definition of the name leaves it open ended should they wish to visit that, and not as decisively closed as some are stating. (But I do agree I think it would be less beneficial all round, and preferable to keep knocking out new ones!)

You really are wearing my brain out, it's not had this much use for ages! :cry_happy:

Edited by Fuppylodders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

On the contrary, I don't see how making something accessible to more collectors negates "the collector part" - quite the opposite, if anything. It might negate the investment / speculator part, but the sets aren't really advertised or sold with that in mind, and TLG doesn't see a krone from that anyway. Collectors and speculators aren't the same thing (or shouldn't be, at least, and historically haven't always meant the same thing, though the former term does seem to be getting co-opted to mean the latter, but that's not TLG's fault or problem). The collectors who supported TLG long ago are already rewarded by having gotten nice LEGO sets, and having gotten to enjoy them earlier.

At any rate, that doesn't seem to be the point of the topic query; it's clearly talking about redesigning sets, not merely reissuing ones. They could easily do a new set of an X-Wing Fighter, say, that has a totally different construction from 7191, and that's obviously the possibility being discussed.

I do think there's ample room for redesigns, for at least some of the most iconic Star Wars vehicles (and characters, locales, etc.) represented in the line. The 7191 X-Wing is still a beautiful set, but does have some funky scale issues, as well as a cockpit canopy with notable variations from the "real" T-65 canopy in concession to LEGO geometry. There's a fair amount of room for improvement. Similarly, even the justly-celebrated 10179 Millennium Falcon isn't absolutely perfect; the cockpit in particular could probably be improved upon a fair bit, and of course there's the possibility of an interior, wholly unexplored with 10179 aside from those interior areas visible from the exterior.

Edited by Blondie-Wan

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.