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.

Advice on collection/selling UCS Imperial Star Destroyer

ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
I recently started collecting UCS sets, and have bought up several older brand new ones on eBay, including the 2002 ISD, which was not cheap. I'm really glad that a new Falcon is coming out, and if a new ISD were to come out that were a similar upgrade from the 2002 one as the 2017 Falcon is from the 2007 one, I would gladly just get that instead of building the 2002 model.

Are we expecting a new ISD soon?

Should I hang onto the brand new 2002 model and sell it when it's confirmed that a new one is coming out?

Or should I just turn around and sell it now? Will the value go down after a new one is announced?

Thanks!
SumoLegokiki180703

Comments

  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 8,276
    You're probably going the best return selling the original set before a re-release or similar set is rumoured, announced or released.

    I think the long-term value of the original UCS MF and original Taj Mahal both suffered in the wake of the new versions.
    Lobotkiki180703mithridate
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    What do we know about the likelihood of a new ISD? I really want to build an ISD, and if the new set weren’t the same exact ship (i.e. the way the two Falcons are the same ship) then I’d want to build the 2002 ship anyway, regardless of what the new set is.
  • RecceRecce 10,171km away from BillundMember Posts: 675
    I doubt the new one, if any, would use the magnets which were kinda unstable from what I've gathered. So you should just go ahead and build it.

    If and when a new one comes out, you can get it, build it and place side-by-side with the old one. 
    SumoLegokiki180703
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,399
    If you are worried about value then you should sell it now.
    FollowsCloselymithridate
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    Hm.. yeah, see, if they are going to make a new one in the near future, I definitely don't want to open this one and kill $1k of its value. And I also have no desire to build this one if I can instead build a larger, upgraded one. So I guess that leaves me unable to justify opening it right now....

    Only problem is, what if I sell it now, and then they just don't ever come out with a new one, and then this one ends up costing twice as much for me to buy again down the road?
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,399
    Then you gambled and lost. Pay what you think is acceptable and be happy with what you have. 
    mithridateOnebricktoomany
  • FireheartFireheart Suffolk, UKMember Posts: 313
    edited December 2017
    Hm.. yeah, see, if they are going to make a new one in the near future, I definitely don't want to open this one and kill $1k of its value. And I also have no desire to build this one if I can instead build a larger, upgraded one. So I guess that leaves me unable to justify opening it right now....

    Only problem is, what if I sell it now, and then they just don't ever come out with a new one, and then this one ends up costing twice as much for me to buy again down the road?
    If you are collecting UCS sets, then you have to assume that some will get redesigned at some point, X-Wing, Snowspeeder, Tie Fighter.. etc..
    The true collector willl want each version of the set.. don’t think about the value when you hold them as a MISB, think of them as a stock, and stocks can go up and down over time.
    If LEGO release a new version of the ISD then at some point in the future this will also get retired, and when both are retired the original will still hold more value than the new version (Same as the Falcon) simply because there are far fewer original versions on the market than the new versions.. Even if the new version is better. 
    If you can afford to, keep the original for as long as possible, it’s value may fluctuate on a new release, but it will bounce back in time.. 
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    Fireheart said:
    Hm.. yeah, see, if they are going to make a new one in the near future, I definitely don't want to open this one and kill $1k of its value. And I also have no desire to build this one if I can instead build a larger, upgraded one. So I guess that leaves me unable to justify opening it right now....

    Only problem is, what if I sell it now, and then they just don't ever come out with a new one, and then this one ends up costing twice as much for me to buy again down the road?
    If you are collecting UCS sets, then you have to assume that some will get redesigned at some point, X-Wing, Snowspeeder, Tie Fighter.. etc..
    The true collector willl want each version of the set.. don’t think about the value when you hold them as a MISB, think of them as a stock, and stocks can go up and down over time.
    If LEGO release a new version of the ISD then at some point in the future this will also get retired, and when both are retired the original will still hold more value than the new version (Same as the Falcon) simply because there are far fewer original versions on the market than the new versions.. Even if the new version is better. 
    If you can afford to, keep the original for as long as possible, it’s value may fluctuate on a new release, but it will bounce back in time.. 
    This makes a lot of sense, thanks! I’ll just hang onto it and keep it sealed for now. There will likely be a new one at some point which I’ll be happy with in terms of opening and building, and then at some point later down the road I’ll sell the sealed original.
  • vwong19vwong19 San DiegoMember Posts: 1,028
    Buy a used set and sell the new one.
    FollowsCloselyTyresOFlahertyJessyDooDahmak0137kiki180703mithridate
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged Member Posts: 69
    I could be wrong, but i thought people seemed to be talking about a re-release of the Super Star Destroyer. That surprised me as the ISD makes a lot more sense. Plus I have the SSD but the ISD was out during my dark ages.
  • redarmyredarmy AberdeenMember Posts: 436
    ^ Tis a thing of beauty that beast..
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 265
    edited December 2017

    My two cents:

    If it's just about the money, sell it now. If you like the model, build it. I wouldn't do that though, after having seen several review videos on YouTube about 10030.

    That set used to be one that I always wanted, but after seeing how fragile the built thing is, I am getting my hopes up that a future re-release will improve upon the original just as much as how they improved the Millennium Falcon design with 75192.
    Therefor I will not get 10030 but rather wait for an improved future re-release. I guess quite a few other potential buyers are currently thinking about doing the same thing.

    I am building Anio's Venator Star Destroyer at the moment, and even though that one also uses magnets for the lower panels (which I intend to replace with a different way of affixing - for cost reasons alone), it is so much more sturdy even though it is of similar external dimensions and design.

  • monstblitzmonstblitz Alexandria, VAMember Posts: 559
    Nobody knows what will happen with this for sure, or at least if they do they aren't talking about it.  I'm not sure what advice you're looking for given the outcome isn't known.  Figure out which scenario worries you more and act on it. 
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,328
    Personally I didn't have a problem with it being fragile.  I moved mine around plenty.  What I found was that those who complained about its fragility had half of the magnets back to front with the same poles facing each other.  This of course gave zero or near zero clutch and why they were falling apart.  I honestly never hassle a problem with it falling apart.

    My problem was instead to do with the central Technic beams bending under the weight of the suspended front end.  Ended up developing a third leg to support the nose.

    An amazing model but would have trouble opening it with the prospect of a new one around the corner.
    SumoLegomaaaaaaaMuftak1bandit778Bumblepantskiki180703
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    Legoboy said:
    Personally I didn't have a problem with it being fragile.  I moved mine around plenty.  What I found was that those who complained about its fragility had half of the magnets back to front with the same poles facing each other.  This of course gave zero or near zero clutch and why they were falling apart.  I honestly never hassle a problem with it falling apart.

    My problem was instead to do with the central Technic beams bending under the weight of the suspended front end.  Ended up developing a third leg to support the nose.

    An amazing model but would have trouble opening it with the prospect of a new one around the corner.
    Thank you for this insight. I was wondering what the true nature of the “magnet problem” was. Honestly if I could be sure that those magnets are strong and have no issues, I’d be very tempted to just build this ship right now.
  • BumblepantsBumblepants Sofia BG/Dallas TXMember Posts: 4,165
    edited December 2017
    Legoboy said:
      Ended up developing a third leg to support the nose.

    That is one option for a third leg I hadn't thought of trying...
    gmonkey76Fizyxkiki180703catwrangler
  • gratefulnatgratefulnat SwitzerlandMember Posts: 192
    I can only confirm what @Legoboy stated.
    I also never had an issue with the magnets, but experienced the bending of the technic beams. And I built a third leg as well which made the sagging nose a non-issue.
    A wonderful set!
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    Well I’ve decided to build it. Any advice on how to go about creating the third leg?
    FowlerBricks
  • gratefulnatgratefulnat SwitzerlandMember Posts: 192
    @ucsstarwarsfan ;
    I built mine just the same as the other two, placed it a few studs forward of the docking bay, attached in exactly the same way to the technic frame. If I remember correctly all I needed to shift were two of the bottom wedge plates to create a large enough opening to insert the leg. Sorry no pictures it was so many years ago... 
    Have fun!!!!!
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 676
    I would think that if the magnets were backward, there wouldn’t be a “problem with clutch power”, it would actually be pushing itself apart!
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    I would think that if the magnets were backward, there wouldn’t be a “problem with clutch power”, it would actually be pushing itself apart!
    I’m going to assume that the people who screwed it up had most of the magnets in correctly, mostly but not quite overpowering the ones that are trying to push it apart.
    Legoboy
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    Well, there isn't really a way to do the magnets wrong, cause they flip to the attracting side as soon as the other magnet gets close. I'm at the point where I've finished building and attaching both bottom plates, and the magnets seem perfectly secure!
  • FowlerBricksFowlerBricks USAMember Posts: 775
    ^Wow! Looks like you made the right choice in keeping it!
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    ^Wow! Looks like you made the right choice in keeping it!
    It is amazing! I might end up selling it if/when a new one is announced, but even then I might not, depending on how different they are.
    FowlerBricks
  • FizyxFizyx ColoradoMember Posts: 223
    I will forever be sad that I missed out on that set.  Of all the UCS sets, I think this one is the only one that can even hope to stand toe to toe with the MF.  The SSD is good too, but I think the Star Destroyer is still on another level.
    monkeyhangerbandit778
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    Fizyx said:
    I will forever be sad that I missed out on that set.  Of all the UCS sets, I think this one is the only one that can even hope to stand toe to toe with the MF.  The SSD is good too, but I think the Star Destroyer is still on another level.
    I'm sure a reissue is impending, and it will be even greater than the original!
  • ucsstarwarsfanucsstarwarsfan Washington StateMember Posts: 18
    FYI, I did just attempt to move the ship to another table, and the two bottom plates detached from the structure, however it wasn't the magnets that didn't hold, it was the pieces that the magnets are attached to on the core structure. All I had to do is take the top part off, reach in, detach the magnets on both sides, reattach the 6-long bar pieces that the magnets are attached to, and then simply move the lower plates back into position, clicking in with the magnets again.
    FowlerBricksOnebricktoomanybandit778
  • gmonkey76gmonkey76 ChicagoMember Posts: 948
    edited January 6
    True story when I moved into my first house I moved my UCS Star Destroyer built on the back seat of my truck. After 30 miles the only thing I had to do was put the bottom hulls back into place. The magnets grabbed, and everything was good as new.
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 1,936

    ^ You built the UCS Star Destroyer on the back seat of a truck? Wouldn't a table be more convenient? ;-)

    Sorry, couldn't resist the ambiguous nature of your first sentence (even though the meaning is obvious).

    gmonkey76
  • catwranglercatwrangler Northern IrelandMember Posts: 1,613
    That is a magnificent thing. 

    And I'd just like to applaud everyone's unusual restraint on the topic of @Legoboy's third leg... 
    FowlerBricksSumoLegogmonkey76Bumblepants
  • BumblepantsBumblepants Sofia BG/Dallas TXMember Posts: 4,165
    That is a magnificent thing. 

    And I'd just like to applaud everyone's unusual restraint on the topic of @Legoboy's third leg... 
    I tried to get a rise out of him with an earlier comment but it failed to stimulate any reactions. 
    gmonkey76Muftak1SumoLegocatwrangler
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy