Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.
You must be 16 or over to participate in the Brickset Forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

75187 BB-8 - UCS or not?

TheBrickPalTheBrickPal USAMember Posts: 38
Hello, everyone! Today I am bringing up a subject that could determine the future of one particular set in our database.

As you may know, 75187 BB-8 is a large-scale droid set that was just released on September 1st. However, even though we currently have it under the Last Jedi subtheme, there is no doubt there are huge differences between it and the other six minifig-scale sets in the wave. That begs the question... should we label it an Ultimate Collector Series set?

The facts: 
  • It is a large-scale, System-built figure done in the style of 10225 R2-D2, a UCS set from 2012.
  • Like R2, it is built in a similar scale, has a display plaque, and includes the minifig version of the titular droid as well.
  • Unlike other recent UCS sets, it does not have a gold badge on the box, and is available in most retail locations rather than only at shop.LEGO.com and LEGO Brand Stores.
  • While released alongside the first wave of Last Jedi sets, BB-8 does not only go with this new film but is representative of the entire sequel trilogy. So, is the Last Jedi subtheme really the most appropriate place for it?
We are aware of the attachments many may have to the UCS series, as well as what may qualify as a set and what doesn't (just look at Assault on Hoth). However, through your opinion we can come up with a designation that most can agree with.

So the real question is - The Last Jedi, or Ultimate Collector Series?

«1

Comments

  • MolicanMolican GermanyMember Posts: 29
    It's a modular, like Market Street! 
    TheBrickPalLegoboySumoLegoBumblepantsOldfanScogalibobabricks
  • TheBrickPalTheBrickPal USAMember Posts: 38
    Really? I thought it was a BrickHead, myself! 
  • akunthitaakunthita USAMember Posts: 944
    I would vote for putting it under the UCS sets. Mainly because R2-D2 is already there, and as TheBrickPal said, other than the UCS label, it is very similar in presentation.
    marook
  • scoiltreasascoiltreasa Ireland Member Posts: 1,267
    I would put it under UCS. 
    marookbobabricks
  • MolicanMolican GermanyMember Posts: 29
    Do all UCS-tagged sets have the gold badge or other UCS-identifying markings on the box? If no, I would tag BB-8 as UCS, because of the plaque, the minifig and the stand. But it's just a little too big to count as a BrickHead(z) ;) 
    TheBrickPal
  • MolicanMolican GermanyMember Posts: 29
    On the other side, Anios BB-8 is the real US one... 
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 1,103
    edited September 3
    All I know is this set will remain built unlike any other Last Jedi set I get. Does that make it UCS no but it is clear that it sits next to R2D2 nicely so sure why not.
  • TheBrickPalTheBrickPal USAMember Posts: 38
    Molican said:
    Do all UCS-tagged sets have the gold badge or other UCS-identifying markings on the box? If no, I would tag BB-8 as UCS, because of the plaque, the minifig and the stand. But it's just a little too big to count as a BrickHead(z) ;) 
    All UCS sets since the 2014 Sandcrawler have had the badge.
  • Matt89190Matt89190 UKMember Posts: 182
    Why does this merit a topic? As many others have stated, this clearly in't a UCS set, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It comes in regular packaging, with no UCS badge on the box as has been the trend in recent years, and in case anyone is thinking of the Falcon being a new trend; the box doesn't look like that either. The plaque doesn't fit with the style of the ones in literally every UCS set. I will concede that Lego are probably torn between wanting it to fit with the R2 and not wanting to take attention away from the Falcon, so they went with this kind of in-between.
    Still not a UCS.
    DrmnezLostInTranslationOmniussid3windr
  • Addicted2OxygenAddicted2Oxygen In the sarlacc's bellyMember Posts: 91
    edited September 3
    UCS. 

    It it has a plaque like some UCS sets. It is a large single model like others in the series. It is not scaled the same as the other non ucs sets (i.e. minifig scale).

    I know now it does not have a badge and therefore is not officially a ucs set. But it has the qualities of one which is how the database has classified previous non ucs sets. 
    TheBrickPal
  • TheBrickPalTheBrickPal USAMember Posts: 38
    edited September 3
    @Matt89190 Why so aggressive? I think I made it clear that we know BB-8 is officially NOT a UCS set. But it does deserve to be grouped with them, for technical purposes, due to its style, quality and other reasons stated in the first post. No evidence? I gave it.

    Also, who are the many others thinking it shouldn't be labelled as such? Most of what I see in this thread (and article comments) so far suggests otherwise.

    This topic has merit; it's a healthy debate.
    Scogali
  • xwingpilotxwingpilot UKMember Posts: 677
    No UCS badge on the box but clearly a UCS set like many others without badges in the Brickset database. As has been said already, it has the stand and the plaque and is large-scale. Looks great next to the UCS R2-D2 too:



    TheBrickPalMegtheCatAddicted2OxygendougtsSwitchfoot55andhe
  • Matt89190Matt89190 UKMember Posts: 182
    @Matt89190 Why so aggressive? I think I made it clear that we know BB-8 is officially NOT a UCS set. But it does deserve to be grouped with them, for technical purposes, due to its style, quality and other reasons stated in the first post. No evidence? I gave it.

    Also, who are the many others thinking it shouldn't be labelled as such? Most of what I see in this thread (and article comments) so far suggests otherwise.

    This topic has merit; it's a healthy debate.
    Really didn't mean to come off as aggressive; sorry! There's been a lot of talk about such things either in the Falcon rumours or SW discussion at one point (I forget which), so I'm just a little tired with the whole debate! I do apologise - reading that back, I did come off a tad harsh, but it genuinely wasn't meant that way.

    I do, however, stand by the last bit about TLG being torn and going for a kind of middle ground.
    TheBrickPalsnowhitie
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,134
    edited September 3
    LEGO evidently does not consider it an Ultimate Collector's Series set, as others have stated, so I would be hesitant to designate it a UCS set in the database. There is some room for debate concerning earlier sets as the UCS range was not truly defined until 2014 but it is now quite clearly branded and that branding is absent from #75187 BB-8.

    Having said that, I absolutely agree that the new set includes a number of features which we can associate with the Ultimate Collector's Series. I imagine it lacks the branding simply because LEGO thought it was worthy of selling alongside standard retail sets to the widest possible audience.
    TheBrickPalSMCStvoyager04gmonkey76BumblepantsLostInTranslationsnowhitieAdzbadboyBengh_Zeran
  • TheBrickPalTheBrickPal USAMember Posts: 38
    Matt89190 said:
    @Matt89190 Why so aggressive? I think I made it clear that we know BB-8 is officially NOT a UCS set. But it does deserve to be grouped with them, for technical purposes, due to its style, quality and other reasons stated in the first post. No evidence? I gave it.

    Also, who are the many others thinking it shouldn't be labelled as such? Most of what I see in this thread (and article comments) so far suggests otherwise.

    This topic has merit; it's a healthy debate.
    Really didn't mean to come off as aggressive; sorry! There's been a lot of talk about such things either in the Falcon rumours or SW discussion at one point (I forget which), so I'm just a little tired with the whole debate! I do apologise - reading that back, I did come off a tad harsh, but it genuinely wasn't meant that way.

    I do, however, stand by the last bit about TLG being torn and going for a kind of middle ground.
    No apology needed! I totally agree. In the end, it all boils down to personal preference.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 7,731
    edited September 4
    It's not a UCS until LEGO says it is 15 years from now in a Design Video celebrating its line of SW scale droids.

    It needs friction pins.
    Bumblepantsgmonkey76MynattsnowhitieScogaliBengh_Zeran
  • meandonlymemeandonlyme Member Posts: 7
    It is as much a UCS as 10225 R2-D2.

  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    edited September 4
    Not UCS. The designation should come from LEGO, not fans.

    If it does have the UCS tag attached to it, then so should any other sets that are like Obi-Wan's Starfighter and Naboo Starfighter, these are both UCS so others similar to those should be included. Also why not apply it to other non-UCS sets like the Helicarrier, Tumbler, Disney Castle, Haunted House, Helm's Deep, etc that some people think are UCS based on size, a plaque, etc. It becomes meaningless if fans get to say what is what, and there will never be consensus.

    Matt89190gmonkey76LostInTranslationTheBrickPalSumoLegoBengh_Zeransid3windr
  • BooTheMightyHamsterBooTheMightyHamster Northern edge of London, just before the dragons...Member Posts: 954
    It's your toy - call it what you like!
    SirBrickalotOfLegodatsunrobbie
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    It's your toy - call it what you like!
    That's fine for individuals. But the question is about the database.

    The question is really should the database be based on actualities/facts or should it be based on feelings?

    UCS sets are very diverse, the only common thing that differentiate them from regular sets is that LEGO refer to them as UCS.
    Bengh_Zeran
  • OrmskirkBricksOrmskirkBricks England, UKMember Posts: 201
    If I was a UCS-Only collector would I buy this set? Yes I would!

    It would display well with other UCS sets, esp given the plaque, display stand and scale of the set.

    Is it an official UCS set? - nope.

    For some reason, Lego omitted this from the UCS family. Maybe an error, maybe so other UCS sets could be produced under the UCS budgets internally...I would imagine the Falcon absorbed a lot of time/money within the Lego group.

    But, as always in life the answer is 42.

    4 u 2 decide...



    SirBrickalotOfLegosnowhitieBlueBen1111
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    drdavewatford said: by
    CCC said:
    Not UCS. The designation should come from LEGO, not fans.
    I tend to agree with this, although given that the infamous poster produced by LEGO a while back retro-fitted the UCS designation to a number of sets which were never identified by LEGO (or the fan community) as UCS at the time of their release and lack many features characteristic of UCS models (plaque etc.) I don't think that LEGO necessarily know what's UCS either....
    Or that what qualifies a set as a UCS set changes through time. 

    A similar argument could be made to remove the UCS tag from the UCS Hoth set. It is officially a UCS set, but it seems many AFOLs hate it being one. It's a rehash of old sets, it's a play set not a display set, the plaque, ...

    Would users of the database be happy if that was removed based on feelings, even if it ultimately leads to an inaccurate database?
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    edited September 4
    Here is the sort of mess the database would be in if fans were allowed to decide what is UCS or not. Italics are their quotes.

    https://brickset.com/sets/list-18823

    46 UCS sets so far ... UCS's have only been associated with Star Wars, Batman, DC Comics Super Heroes, & Marvel Super Heroes

    Most UCS's are Direct To Consumer sets so I might as well include this set. While not a UCS, it's still big enough to act like one. (Diagon Alley)

    2013 starts with another branching off! In fact, this year has a whole bunch of branching off! Anyways, the first DC Comics Super Heroes "UCS" is this set right here. (Arkham)

    What did I say? A second branching off of "UCS" in the same year! (Orthanc)

    What do you have it, 2014 starts with a branching off as well with The Simpsons!

    Wow! Yet another branching off this year! This "UCS" gives us our first boat set for the title. (Sea Cow)

    The last thing 2014 brought us was an actual UCS from DC Comics Super Heroes. So, it does make it in the line-up of themes with UCS's (Tumbler)

    Marvel decides to make a UCS set this year with this right here. Right now, it's the only UCS Marvel set but, of course, it could still change. (Helicarrier)

    2016 kicks off relatively alright with this Ghostbusters set. It's nice that we get another branched off "UCS". Plus, this is the third biggest LEGO set made! (GBHQ)

    2016 also gives us another DC Comics Super Heroes UCS! (Batcave)

    And so we come to present day. This time, Pirates Of The Caribbean comes back from the dead along with this ghost ship in this set! (It's amazing how many branching offs we've had in about 4 years!) (Silent Mary)

    Ninjago City, Minecraft The Village and The Mountain Cave, Disney Castle,  Silent Mary, GBHQ, Batcave, Quik-E-Mart and Simpsons House, Helicararrier, Tumbler, Sea Cow, Orthanc, Arkham, Diagon Alley, ..

    If Silent Mary is UCS, then why not Destiny's Bounty (and Imperial Flagship)? Diagon Alley but not Hogwarts Castle? Why not all the Modulars, the Old Fishing Store, Big Ben, Taj Mahal, Tower Bridge, etc ...




    LostInTranslationgmonkey76TheBrickPalsnowhitieBlueBen1111Bengh_Zeransid3windr
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 817
    Bb8 is not. There really is no debating it. If you still insist... Does the #10187 vw beetle count as a ucs? It's a large set with a plaque?? 

    Additionally, if we just get to pick what counts as ucs' I think that #10228 haunted house should be a modular
    drdavewatfordCCCgmonkey76TheBrickPalSumoLegoBengh_Zeransid3windr
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    Drmnez said:
    Bb8 is not. There really is no debating it. If you still insist... Does the #10187 vw beetle count as a ucs? It's a large set with a plaque?? 

    And also add #10241 Maersk Line Triple-E. It meets the large set and a plaque reasoning.

    Drmnez said:

    Additionally, if we just get to pick what counts as ucs' I think that #10228 haunted house should be a modular
    No, that's clearly a plaque-less UCS set! It needs the side technic pins to be a modular. Unless you claim it is pin-less modular as it needs to have a plaque to be a UCS ... :-)


    DrmnezSumoLegosid3windr
  • BumblepantsBumblepants Sofia BG/Dallas TXMember Posts: 3,915
    I would like to submit #3429 Ultimate Defense to the debate. It is very extremely ultimate.
  • Addicted2OxygenAddicted2Oxygen In the sarlacc's bellyMember Posts: 91
    One way to maybe appease most people would be to have the UCS label only applied to sets that have that badge on them. Hopefully everyone can agree that a set with the UCS label on is a UCS set (whether you think the set ought to be or not is another discussion).

    Then also have another label, USC-like, or something similar, for sets that the database maintainers think are like UCS sets.

    This would solve the issue for old sets that maybe Lego should have put the label on, and solve it for sets that look like UCS sets but are not.

    Of course the argument will move to should it be classified as UCS-like, but hopefully less so as it is more clearly based on the maintainers decisions.



    omniumsid3windr
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 1,609
    I dont think it needs to be such a black and white question. We could have a third option of 'Quasi-UCS' sets, including all the ones which are "near misses" like @CCC listed.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    MaffyD said:
    I dont think it needs to be such a black and white question. We could have a third option of 'Quasi-UCS' sets, including all the ones which are "near misses" like @CCC listed.
    I'd really wonder whether that is a useful tag to have. Someone still has to decide whether or not to include the tag in the database, whether this should or that should. If it is just based on number of parts, then it is simple (but there is the argument about how many parts are needed). If it is based on getting a certain number of hits for different attributes, then what are those attributes going to be? Number of parts, contains a plaque, licensed or not, not minifig size, display rather than play, ... These are all debatable to some extent (How many parts to be UCS? What shape plaque? Is Ninjago Movie licensed? Is DS minifigure scale or not? Is DS or EV or Ninjago City for play or display?

    And then does anyone really care if The Silent Mary is a "near miss UCS" set but the Imperial Flagship isn't? Or Diagon Alley is but Ninjago City isn't?

    LostInTranslation
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    One way to maybe appease most people would be to have the UCS label only applied to sets that have that badge on them.

    It is not the badge as such, but whether or not LEGO says they are. Early sets didn't have the badge, but had the branding printed on the box/manual. Some didn't have even that but appear on LEGO lists / posters of UCS sets. There can be no denying they are officially UCS if LEGO says they are. If LEGO puts out a new poster with UCS sets on it and BB-8 appears on it, then the designation should be updated, even though at present they have not used the branding.
    LostInTranslationdarkstonegreyBengh_Zeran
  • LostInTranslationLostInTranslation UKMember Posts: 5,111
    edited September 4
    I'm with CCC on this. Until such time as Lego retrospectively says it's a UCS, it's not.

    I also don't see what benefit there is in creating a third category for "Non UCS Non Star Wars but large sets", when it's really quite simple already in the database to search for large sets: 

    Home > Browse > Sets > Normal 
    Sort by Number of pieces (desc) 
    Then filter by theme or tag or year as desired. 

    (I have also always been a bit dubious about the merits of the Advanced Models theme but that's a whole other can of worms :-) 
    gmonkey76drdavewatfordCCCTheBrickPaldarkstonegreyBengh_Zeran
  • AtbricksAtbricks Ontario, CanadaMember Posts: 3
    Interesting discussion point. It's a slippery slope though. My 2 cents: Do not label as UCS as TLG have not labelled it as such. There are a few UCS Bricklists out there, folks can use their own criteria for Bricklists.
    datsunrobbie
  • als-1971als-1971 uk derbyshireMember Posts: 40
    I don't care if its ucs or not but it is on display with my other ucs sets and it looks like it belongs there.
    dougtsTheBrickPal
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,086
    edited September 4
    The problem with going by the box labeling is that several of the SW UCS sets were not labeled such in the box, but clearly are. Should we remove them from the UCS list?

    so LEGO's own inconsistencies and lack of clarity is why this conversation exists in the first place

    regarding BB-8, I really don't care. But judging by its characteristics, it is much much more similar to a SW UCS set than it is to a SW non-UCS set
  • darkstonegreydarkstonegrey USAMember Posts: 10
    Not until TLG officially designates it as UCS - when concerning any set, SW or otherwise.
    gmonkey76
  • DrmnezDrmnez USA, Planet earth Member Posts: 817
    Just because it has a sticker plaque doesn't mean it's a ucs and is a lame reason to have it be. My batpod is more of a ucs than bb8 and if the label denotes ucs then we need to include the ucs vw beetle and the ucs triple-e into the conversation. 
    gmonkey76
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,086
    Not until TLG officially designates it as UCS - when concerning any set, SW or otherwise.
    So I guess we need to remove 10188, 10212, 10221, 10227, 10236, and 10240 from the UCS list then. 
  • shaaseshaase Member Posts: 10
    For me it comes down to three criteria
    • The Box/Instructions states it UCS
    • The Set comes with an UCS plaque
    • It's number in the 10xxx
    I know everyone has their own opinion and the a true UCS is a display model; but leave it to yourself to decide what is UCS. Some of the sets consider UCS others would not and I'm OK with that.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,086
    CCC said:
    One way to maybe appease most people would be to have the UCS label only applied to sets that have that badge on them.

    It is not the badge as such, but whether or not LEGO says they are. Early sets didn't have the badge, but had the branding printed on the box/manual. Some didn't have even that but appear on LEGO lists / posters of UCS sets. There can be no denying they are officially UCS if LEGO says they are. If LEGO puts out a new poster with UCS sets on it and BB-8 appears on it, then the designation should be updated, even though at present they have not used the branding.
    Per your guidelines, Please make sure the DB is updated to remove the UCS tag from 10188, 10236, 10240, and 10221. 
  • BobflipBobflip Member Posts: 340
    Maybe it's just CS because they don't think it's U enough, so then it's not eligible for the badge and branding. 
  • FauchFauch FranceMember Posts: 1,679
    CCC said:
    It's your toy - call it what you like!
    That's fine for individuals. But the question is about the database.

    The question is really should the database be based on actualities/facts or should it be based on feelings?

    UCS sets are very diverse, the only common thing that differentiate them from regular sets is that LEGO refer to them as UCS.
    the question then would be, you are looking for the BB8 set, to which star wars category do you instinctly go to find it?
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,969
    edited September 4
    Fauch said:
    CCC said:
    It's your toy - call it what you like!
    That's fine for individuals. But the question is about the database.

    The question is really should the database be based on actualities/facts or should it be based on feelings?

    UCS sets are very diverse, the only common thing that differentiate them from regular sets is that LEGO refer to them as UCS.
    the question then would be, you are looking for the BB8 set, to which star wars category do you instinctly go to find it?
    2017 releases?

    ;-)
    gmonkey76LostInTranslationTheBrickPal
  • MAGNINOMINISUMBRAMAGNINOMINISUMBRA Member Posts: 637
    Drmnez said:
    Just because it has a sticker plaque doesn't mean it's a ucs and is a lame reason to have it be. My batpod is more of a ucs than bb8 and if the label denotes ucs then we need to include the ucs vw beetle and the ucs triple-e into the conversation. 
    Better add the Dreamliner in there as well...
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,680
    Fauch said:
    CCC said:
    It's your toy - call it what you like!
    That's fine for individuals. But the question is about the database.

    The question is really should the database be based on actualities/facts or should it be based on feelings?

    UCS sets are very diverse, the only common thing that differentiate them from regular sets is that LEGO refer to them as UCS.
    the question then would be, you are looking for the BB8 set, to which star wars category do you instinctly go to find it?
    I tend to use the search function.
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 1,609

    I don't have a horse in this race, as I have three categories I define my criteria on: Have, Want, Don't Care. I'm trying to find options that others might want.

    The idea of finding it by year is all very well and good until we're 5 years down the line and we can't remember (or new people have yet to find out) which year it was released in and have pages and pages to look through, even when sorting by parts or filtering by sequel trilogy or whatever.

    I don't care how Lego have categorised it, as they're inconsistent at best and ignorantly divisive at worst. If we have a tag that not many people use, then so be it - it's exactly a massive overhead to just have it hanging around, and if it's not useful, delete it. As to what might go in such a tag, I'd say all of them. ALL OF THEM! Anything that has ever been considered a 'near miss' or even a 'near near miss'. But not anything @CCC suggests, just because :-P (joking).

  • LostInTranslationLostInTranslation UKMember Posts: 5,111
    edited September 5
    MaffyD said:

    The idea of finding it by year is all very well and good until we're 5 years down the line and we can't remember (or new people have yet to find out) which year it was released in and have pages and pages to look through, even when sorting by parts or filtering by sequel trilogy or whatever

    But as Dr Dave says, if you're looking for info on BB-8 wouldn't you just search for BB-8??
    Or if you're looking for large Star Wars sets, search for Star Wars and sort by parts descending.
    I think I must be missing the point of what a tag would achieve here? 

    MaffyD
  • omniumomnium Brickenham, UKMember Posts: 218
    edited September 5
    I really really don't have a horse in the race... but I see what people are getting at.

    At the end of the day, for me, UCS is a label that LEGO have come up with and have applied it illogically. The logical part of me says the database should only have the UCS tag on sets LEGO have deemed to be UCS.

    But I know there are a group of sets that are for "collectors" and fit a certain pattern. And many of those aren't necessarily Star Wars, and are not labelled UCS.
    Or if you're looking for large Star Wars sets, search for Star Wars and sort by parts descending.
    I think I must be missing the point of what a tag would achieve here? 


    But BB-8 isn't a large set, so it would be way down the list.

    I think people who consider BB-8 a UCS style set are considering it on many parameters, not size, but the display stand, the plaque, the style, and so on, making it something that collectors would display.

    That same definition fits sets like the BatMobile which isn't "UCS" but is that sort of display piece that people keep on a shelf to show people.

    I have no idea what to call such a tag, except "detolf" springs to mind :-D
    datsunrobbie
  • omniumomnium Brickenham, UKMember Posts: 218
    The main set I, as a collector, have displayed for the last year or so, is Ragana's Magic Shadow Castle. Should that be labelled as a collector's set just because I think it's a worthy display item?
    Ultimately, just about every LEGO set is a collector's item :-)
    What constitutes a display item will differ for each person. 
    Indeed! You can see from above responses that the criteria for "UCS" varies. It's a vague concept that LEGO have not nailed down well at all.
    Is the plaque the main point of debate? Why not just do a "Plaque" tag then? 
    It's one of the main criteria. But some people think UCS should only apply to Star Wars too, for example. I think a "Plaque" tag a good start.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy