Is Lego crazy for not re-releasing sets?

[condor]

UCS MF was $400 when it came out, now it's selling for at least $1000 in the secondary market. Cafe Corner was $150 and now it's selling for $700+. I know there are countless other sets I could mention: Taj Mahal, Star Wars sets, Fantasy Castle series, and on and on.

Why doesn't Lego re-release these sets? Think about how much money they could make selling them at retail. If people are willing to pay that much in the secondary market, imagine how much Lego would make if they re-released them. They could even make it a specialized item sold through their online store so they don't clutter the in store shelves.

Thoughts?

[vynsane]

It seems like they could do so, but I think it gets into a sticky situation if people accuse them of artificially retiring sets and then re-releasing them all the time just to manufacture rarity. People who miss out and buy a set on the secondary market only to find out it's been re-released for cheaper than they bought it would be pretty angry, I'd think.

[lukeskywalker]

It seems like they could do so, but I think it gets into a sticky situation if people accuse them of artificially retiring sets and then re-releasing them all the time just to manufacture rarity. People who miss out and buy a set on the secondary market only to find out it's been re-released for cheaper than they bought it would be pretty angry, I'd think.

That's true. For the same reason, car manufacturers can't re-release famous models.

[slacker]

It could be just a new phenomena with the sets you mentioned. I could be wrong but there aren't that many recent large sets that are now 3 or 4 times what they were when they came out. I don't see Lego re-releasing cafe corner. I think they will make a new variations of it. I want cafe corner but I'm not willing to pay triple for that set. Maybe double ;) I rather buy three newer sets.

UCS MF was $500 when it came out. I've been following that set for a year and from what I have read, it wasn't a popular set. Lego never released an exact same UCS set. So I don't think the will ever re-release another UCS MF.

Lego does re-release sets but a new variation of it. I think there are 3 x-wing sets. And they sell very well. The current one has been selling for atleast 4 years? But for the sets you mentioned, they are one of a kind in my book.

Making new sets is where Lego makes their bread and butter. Last thing they want is a large inventory of larger sets sitting there. Besides collectors are buying those sets because it's discontinued. If they weren't, people would wait until there is a sale like most of us are. If Lego didn't discontinue any sets, we wouldn't have clearance sales :D

[vynsane]

Lego does re-release sets but a new variation of it. I think there are 3 x-wing sets. And they sell very well. The current one has been selling for atleast 4 years? But for the sets you mentioned, they are one of a kind in my book.

I'd say that's more of a 'remake' than a 're-release' - I wouldn't consider the newest Slave 1 to be a re-release of the previous editions, but more of a refined 'remake'.

That said, there have been limited edition re-releases from 2001-2004, under the 'LEGO Legends' sub-theme, but they've always been of sets that were out of production for quite some time, a decade or more. There's a bricklist of all of them.

[sadowsk1]

I imagine it depends on the set and whether it's licensed or not also. I wish they would release some sets I missed again, but I can only imagine what a Star Wars set priced at 10 dollars back in 1999 would be priced at now according to Lego Star Wars mandatory laws of inflation...Probably close to 25-30 bucks.

[condor]

It seems like they could do so, but I think it gets into a sticky situation if people accuse them of artificially retiring sets and then re-releasing them all the time just to manufacture rarity. People who miss out and buy a set on the secondary market only to find out it's been re-released for cheaper than they bought it would be pretty angry, I'd think.

I can see that, but what if they never retired them and left them on the market? I guess that depends on demand too though. It would be nice if we could see the sales number per set sort of like how video games keep track of sales.

[koromo]

Didn't lego do some blast from the past revisits of classic castle and pirate sets?

[Zeya]

Didn't lego do some blast from the past revisits of classic castle and pirate sets?

Two pirate ships and a castle were sort of re-made. Some of the molds were different, and the sails had a completely different pattern, and other differences. The castle was pretty far off from the original. I only know about this by reading about it online though. They were labeled "Legends" and they were sold in the early 2000s, around 2004 I think.

The general reaction seems to have been lukewarm. To re-release a set with different parts is kind of annoying. (They did give them unique set numbers at least.) But that's coming from a purchaser/builder point of view, whereas resellers would rather have them be different. But then a reseller wouldn't want anything re-released anyway.

[vynsane]

Two pirate ships and a castle were sort of re-made. Some of the molds were different, and the sails had a completely different pattern, and other differences. The castle was pretty far off from the original. I only know about this by reading about it online though.

I wouldn't believe everything you read on the internet ;)

I took a look at the Bricklink inventories of both the original and reissue of the two pirate ships and "Black Falcon Fortress" (the castle you mention) and they're exact copies of one-another except for the odd one-off difference (both of the printed blue flags with the Black Falcon emblem are different). The differences between both pirate ships are minimal. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

They were labeled "Legends" and they were sold in the early 2000s, around 2004 I think.

Yeah, the link I posted above has all of them except for the re-issue of 'Red Beard Runner', which might or might not have been labelled as 'Legends', but they were all re-issued between the years 2001 and 2004.

[Zeya]

My bad - it's just my faulty memory betraying me. You're probably right. Like I said, I don't own these sets. And I only took a passing interest in these. I'm a Pirates/Castle fan, but I don't delve into discontinued sets (because of the cost, essentially).

[legitimatealex]

I would buy a re-release of a set in a heartbeat. There are so many sets I missed out on. At the same time a bunch of people would be pissed off, but to a lot of people, those hardcore collectors who are willing to pay 3x of what it is worth, they wont be happy with the 're-release' because it wont be the same as the original. I don't think they would view it as the same set.

[cbaker1974]

One of the biggest problems with re-releases is probably due to the already existing product in the consumer base...the larger sets are usually targeted more at adults. With kids there is a constant churn of "new buyers" to market a re-release to...the 10 year old who bought the 6212 X-Wing in 2007 is now ready to put his toys in the attic and start messing around with girls, however the 6 year old from 2007 is now a "new" 10 year old that such a set is "new" to.

However with Cafe Corner, there is a limited market of AFOL...sure over the years that community grows, but probably not at a rate where after 4-5 years, or even 10 years there is a completely new turned-over AFOL audience. It's a lot easier to sell 100,000 units of new Pet Shop to a consumer base of 200,000 AFOL than it is to sell 100,000 units of re-released Cafe Corner to that same user base (because half of them already have it, shrinking your target audience). Plus since Lego is modular, there's not as much cost savings by "re-using" an existing mold (or in this case an existing assortment of parts) as you might have with collectible action figures or whatnot.

[NIGELTTF]

However with Cafe Corner, there is a limited market of AFOL...sure over the years that community grows, but probably not at a rate where after 4-5 years, or even 10 years there is a completely new turned-over AFOL audience. It's a lot easier to sell 100,000 units of new Pet Shop to a consumer base of 200,000 AFOL than it is to sell 100,000 units of re-released Cafe Corner to that same user base (because half of them already have it, shrinking your target audience). Plus since Lego is modular, there's not as much cost savings by "re-using" an existing mold (or in this case an existing assortment of parts) as you might have with collectible action figures or whatnot.

Also when marking to the AFOL market, you want to have the "get em now before they're gone" aspect going on, because AFOL have pesky things like Dentist bills, tuition, and mortgages and Lego knows they've got to make you pull the trigger on whats in your wallet now before one of the pesky things comes along.

[NIGELTTF]

It seems like they could do so, but I think it gets into a sticky situation if people accuse them of artificially retiring sets and then re-releasing them all the time just to manufacture rarity. People who miss out and buy a set on the secondary market only to find out it's been re-released for cheaper than they bought it would be pretty angry, I'd think.

That's true. For the same reason, car manufacturers can't re-release famous models.

No, the secondary markets anger does not matter for crap. Car manufatures can't re-release famous models because regulations and saftey standards increase...not decrease. A 57 Chevy would not meet fuel efficiency, emmisions, brake, airbag and front end collision requirements of 2011. Notoce however, "retro-styling" has become popular as consumers have grown tired of cars trending towards the "used bar of soap" look that's occurred over the past 25 years.

[videriant]

As someone mentioned, the money is too small. Sure some sets may go for 2-3x what they originally cost but how many of those are available at any time. LEGO sold a bunch of those sets, they've just disappeared into the ether.