Review: 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer

Posted by ,
View image at flickr

Star Wars features numerous excellent vehicles and the menacing Imperial-class Star Destroyer enjoys tremendous renown. Multiple renditions of this fantastic vessel have been produced and 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer looks impressive when compared with the movie, based upon its appearance in official images.

Furthermore, the model certainly captures the overwhelming scale of its spectacular source material, including 4784 elements and measuring 110cm in length! However, the associated price of £649.99 or $699.99 seems rather expensive, particularly when compared with 75192 Millennium Falcon. Nevertheless, I am approaching this review with high expectations.

Box and Contents

75252 Imperial Star Destroyer is packaged in an enormous box, corresponding with 75192 Millennium Falcon. The vessel appears suitably imposing here, ensnaring the miniature Tantive IV above Tatooine and featuring interesting shadows which convey its scale. The black border looks marvellous and each side of the box displays the model from different angles.

View image at flickr

Four white boxes are found inside, containing 52 bags that are numbered between one and nineteen. Several bags including larger components are also provided and the boxes create an impressive Star Destroyer design when stacked together, as demonstrated here. The packaging undoubtedly appears suitably sophisticated, befitting this premium set.

Another box accommodates the spiral bound instruction manual, comprising 444 pages. The manual for 75192 Millennium Falcon remains more substantial than this example, although not to the extent I envisaged since this model incorporates sections which must be assembled twice and includes fewer pieces than the YT-1300 freighter.

View image at flickr

The manual includes extensive information about the Star Destroyer alongside interviews with Jens Kronvold Frederiksen and Henrik Andersen. Jens focuses upon earlier LEGO Star Destroyers while Henrik discusses the design process behind this model and its relationship with 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer from 2002. I appreciate these features and the accompanying images are superb.

View image at flickr
View image at flickr

Minifigures

Two minifigures are included which is slightly disappointing, particularly given the association between Darth Vader and the Devastator. However, this Imperial Officer is unique, wearing an attractive plaque that denotes the rank of lieutenant and featuring dual-moulded legs. The head has appeared previously but suits the officer perfectly and his dark bluish grey kepi looks wonderful.

View image at flickr

An excellent Imperial Crew Member accompanies the officer. Despite depicting a generic character, this minifigure includes remarkable detail so improves upon previous designs quite considerably. The torso and legs are both decorated with lovely creasing and the headset compares favourably with the source material too, returning from past figures.

View image at flickr

Of course, the most notable difference between this minifigure and its predecessors are the intricately printed arms. Each shoulder features Imperial symbols and three code cylinders are stored on the left arm, despite appearing on the right during the movies. Even so, the arms are highly detailed and both minifigures wield blaster pistols.

View image at flickr

Construction

Ultimate Collector Series models commonly include display stands, although their assembly is usually delayed towards the end of the building process. However, construction commences with the stand on this occasion, potentially indicating that it might form an integral part of the structure. Four black lattice elements are fixed to the base using 1x2 plates with vertical shafts, creating a secure connection.

View image at flickr

The entire vehicle is constructed around a robust Technic core, consisting primarily of Technic panels. Several beams project from this structure but their respective purposes only become apparent during the latter stages of assembly. The bright colours are also notable, although these components will be concealed when the model is completed.

View image at flickr

An impressive frame is mounted around the core, consisting almost entirely of Technic beams. Their angles begin to reveal the shape of an Imperial Star Destroyer at this stage which is nice, particularly since vessels within the Star Wars universe would probably be constructed around a similar structure! This frame gives an impression of its size too, measuring 95cm in length without any panels.

View image at flickr

Having prepared the Technic frame, attention next shifts to the detailed flanks of this model. These elongated sections are identical so their construction is quite repetitive, although the intricate use of light bluish grey ingots, binoculars and hinges is brilliant. I appreciate how the panels are connected too, employing three pins that feel incredibly secure.

View image at flickr

Enormous light bluish grey panels dominate this model and their constituent plates should be pressed down carefully to avoid bowing. Two such components are mounted beneath the frame and these are remarkably heavy, demonstrating the fantastic strength of the Technic core. Small ball joints are used along the edges while exposed axles support the meeting point between these panels.

View image at flickr

The hangar bays and main reactor are similarly mounted upside down, further exploiting the central structure that provides attachment points on almost every surface. I am particularly pleased with the main reactor dome. Clips are concealed within, hence two rounded panels are angled to correspond with the surrounding armour.

View image at flickr

System and Technic pieces are combined again towards the stern, securing three substantial panels around the engines. These wedge plates line up neatly with the ventral panels and numerous smaller components are distributed here to represent mechanical detail. The light bluish grey 1x1 half cylinder elements, for example, seem appealing as they have only appeared in two previous sets.

View image at flickr

Furthermore, the structure behind the engines is connected to the aforementioned Technic core using beams with ball cups. The resultant assembly feels extraordinarily sturdy, providing ample support for the substantial engine nacelles. Building these engines is slightly repetitive, although this is inevitable given their duplicated design and this phase of the construction process is relatively brief.

View image at flickr

Attention next returns to the armoured panels, four of which are positioned around the bow. Despite their outwardly similar appearance, constructing the panels is rather enjoyable as the smaller details vary considerably. Once again, ball joints and Technic axles are required to attach the ventral panels while those on top only employ ball joints and rest upon the spine that runs for almost the entire length of the Star Destroyer.

View image at flickr

Completing the angular armour is remarkably satisfying. 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer includes four panels which are constructed sequentially but similar segments are assembled in eight sections here. This provides much greater enjoyment in my opinion, especially since their construction is punctuated by building the engine nacelles. In addition, dividing each panel might mitigate against them bowing in the future.

View image at flickr

The bridge superstructure is assembled separately and feels somewhat familiar, employing building techniques which have appeared on almost every substantial rendition of an Imperial Star Destroyer. External plates are connected to clips inside the command tower, accurately recreating its distinctive tapering shape from the movies.

View image at flickr

Five axles join the command tower to the Technic core, demonstrating wonderful continuity between early and late stages of construction. The crew decks are then positioned around this focal structure, using aerials that fit through yellow 2x2 coupling plates and rest above the surrounding armour. This technique is simple but seems quite effective as the resulting design looks magnificent.

View image at flickr

Despite both sets consisting primarily of segmented panels, 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer and 75192 Millennium Falcon offer divergent building experiences. The earlier model features numerous separate sections which seem relatively disparate. Construction of this vessel, by comparison, remains cohesive throughout the entire process, due primarily to the consistent significance of the Technic frame.

View image at flickr

The Completed Model

Seventeen years have passed since 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer was released and 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer represents an impressive improvement, especially given the high standard established by its predecessor. The proportions have been refined and this vessel includes superb detail, although the dominant light bluish grey colour scheme reduces the impact of these lovely aesthetic features.

View image at flickr

Nevertheless, such uniform design compares favourably with the source material and this menacing creation remains exceptionally attractive, due primarily to its prodigious scale! The vehicle measures 110cm in length, exceeding even 75192 Millennium Falcon by considerable distance and dominating 75055 Imperial Star Destroyer which appears for comparison below. In fact, this model overwhelmed my standard photographic space.

View image at flickr

The black display stand provides adequate support though, connecting underneath the main reactor and ensuring perfect balance. Its design appears fairly consistent with past Ultimate Collector Series models but this stand is unusually difficult to remove as sections of the Star Destroyer must be partly disassembled before the connecting pins may be detached from inside the model.

View image at flickr

Unfortunately, an enormous sticker forms the information plaque and the primary engines have been erroneously omitted from the technical specifications which is rather disappointing. However, the blue Star Destroyer design looks marvellous and there is plentiful space for minifigures to stand beside the plaque, as demonstrated here.

View image at flickr

LEGO discovered an effective method for designing Star Destroyers during 2002 and the latest model appears reasonably familiar in certain regards. For instance, the pointed prow consists almost entirely of wedge plates and resembles previous models, although this example includes great textured detail across the top and I think the tapered armour along each flank looks splendid.

View image at flickr

The memorable opening scene of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope shows Darth Vader's imposing vessel pursuing the Tantive IV and a diminutive rendition of the Corellian Corvette is provided here. A trans-clear beam links this model to the Star Destroyer and it includes brilliant detail, combining white and dark red elements to outstanding effect. In fact, only the cockpit section includes an incongruous black component.

View image at flickr

Furthermore, I believe the engine structure appears disproportionately large here, although it may be difficult to avoid that without designing a longer rendition of the Tantive IV. However, this model is the perfect length in relation to the Imperial Star Destroyer and comfortably fits inside the ventral hangar bay, corresponding precisely with the film.

View image at flickr

Removing the elegant Tantive IV reveals four curving rails and numerous 1x2 grille tiles, both of which look excellent when compared with the film. A miniature TIE Fighter is suspended from its deployment rack and the designer has included the secondary hangar bay, replicating its unusual onscreen shape. The central gap seems awkward but I like the pearl silver tractor beam projectors and 1x1 round tiles that represent ventral laser cannons.

View image at flickr

In fact, the entire structure exhibits extraordinary attention to detail. Certain sections of armour plating are accurately raised and these panels are not wholly symmetrical so look authentic. The combination of studded and smooth surfaces is effective in my opinion, creating lovely textured detail and resultant shadows which are helpful in breaking up the monochromatic silhouette.

View image at flickr

Similarly intricate decoration appears along either flank. Once again, these designs appear perfectly accurate, including substantial conduits that occupy the same position during the movie. Comparing this creation to the original studio model reveals countless accurate details, representing a fantastic improvement over previous LEGO Star Destroyers.

View image at flickr

Quad laser batteries are situated towards the stern, including four tiny barrels. They seem rather large when compared with the movies but increasing the size of these weapons has enabled the designer to include superior detail. Moreover, the turrets are mounted on ball joints which provide extensive motion and you can move the cannons individually, although that was not necessarily intentional.

View image at flickr

Further armament protects the dorsal surface, including three axial defence turrets which appear most prominently during Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Each weapon is mounted on the structure beneath using one stud, hence they feel rather fragile. However, you can rotate the turrets for dynamic display and their shape matches the source material.

View image at flickr

The layered crew decks appear reasonably similar to the larger panels, featuring studded and smooth surfaces alongside myriad subtle details. The pronounced cone at the centre is particularly impressive as this feature is scarcely visible during the films and the cone is positioned vertically so contrasts with the surrounding angled sections.

View image at flickr

Sections of the crew decks can be removed with ease, revealing the Technic frame underneath. This provides a robust handle which is helpful because the model feels extremely heavy, almost matching 75192 Millennium Falcon! Unfortunately, the centre of gravity is situated behind this handle, although the instruction manual also suggests lifting the Star Destroyer from beneath as an alternative.

View image at flickr

Numerous smaller pieces are distributed along the edges of the crew decks, forming the distinctively textured surfaces which are evident onscreen. The hinge bases seem particularly attractive, creating shadows that provide the illusion of depth. Some dark bluish grey pieces could have been positioned among these light bluish grey elements, although I think it looks wonderful without them.

View image at flickr

Three heavy turbolaser turrets are mounted beside an ion cannon turret on each side of the command structure. These can rotate and the barrels are individually articulated. I like the 2x2 pentagonal plates situated towards the back of each turbolaser and the contrasting ion cannon looks good too, featuring light bluish levers which have not been available since 20010 Republic Gunship was produced during 2009.

View image at flickr

Returning to the underside, an enormous dome protects the main reactor and this seems reasonably faithful to the movie. Henrik Andersen reveals that this structure dictated the scale of the entire model during the designer video. The display stand connects through two large holes underneath the vehicle. They appear awkward but are unavoidable and this area of the model typically remains hidden.

View image at flickr

Power from the main reactor is transferred to three immense engines. These are constructed using 5x10x6 cones which are beautifully scaled, although the engines should include curved shapes and that has not been captured here. The surrounding armour, on the other hand, looks magnificent and adjoins the dorsal and ventral panels perfectly.

View image at flickr

Moreover, the mechanical detail is appropriate and I like the 1x2 tiles which are situated around each engine, forming thrust fins. The auxiliary thrust nozzles appear equally authentic, featuring light bluish grey barrels inside matching 4x4 tubs. The same building technique appeared on 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer which demonstrates enjoyable continuity and I think it remains effective here!

Dark bluish grey elements are positioned along the rear section, contrasting with the remainder of the vessel. These create additional depth behind the grille tiles and the steep angle is accurate in relation to the Imperial I-class Star Destroyers from Star Wars Episode IV and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Additionally, I like how skids are attached towards the top and the light bluish grey conduits are nicely integrated as well.

View image at flickr

The command tower appears slightly simpler than other areas of the Star Destroyer, featuring several tiles and light bluish grey ingots while also leaving many studs exposed. The bridge was almost totally invisible during the original Star Wars movie but has subsequently become more prominent and could have been represented by a 2x2 coupling plate here. However, I think the classic aesthetic feels quite suitable on this occasion.

View image at flickr

Sensor equipment dominates the command tower, most notably featuring the prominent tractor beam targeting array. Its shape corresponds exactly with the source material and you can lower the array to resemble an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer, recreating their changing appearance within the Original Trilogy. Other alterations were also made to the studio model and you could make similar adjustments here, if you wish.

View image at flickr

Rounded deflector shield generators flank the targeting antenna. They are not entirely round and lack texture which is disappointing, although I think the surrounding antenna are wonderful and any further improvements to their shape would necessitate new pieces. Another authentic detail is located behind the command bridge where two light bluish grey BB-8 head components are found.

View image at flickr

Overall

Ultimate Collector Series models are created to impress and 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer certainly satisfies that requirement. This vessel looks absolutely spectacular on display and includes excellent detail, corresponding exactly with the movies. The extraordinary scale is also impressive, surpassing the majestic 75192 Millennium Falcon and 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer in every dimension!

View image at flickr

However, displaying such an enormous model may prove challenging. Moreover, the price of £649.99 or $699.99 seems expensive, albeit not necessarily to the extent that I anticipated because the Imperial Star Destroyer is considerably larger than I had envisaged. The number of pieces is potentially misleading here as many larger elements are required and they have presumably increased the cost.

View image at flickr

On that basis, I would recommend viewing the model in person if possible. 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer has exceeded my expectations and I think other LEGO Star Wars fans may share this opinion after experiencing its sheer scale. This is undoubtedly the definitive rendition of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

I hope you have found this review informative. Let us know by liking this article and share your opinion of the set in the comments.

This set was provided for review by The LEGO Group but the review is an expression of my own opinions.

91 comments on this article

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

So. Much. Want.

Thanks for bankrupting me, AGAIN, Brickset.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Still think it's a massive £649.99 gray study triangle disappointment, and all that interior detailing looks awful just aload of coloured beams. Dont remember that in the films unless maybe that's a hint to a new Star Wars remake.

Though great review @CapnRex101, shame it was just on a bad set but you made it seem better.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Huge....boring....empty....prohibitively expensive.
That completes my review.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I’m not going to rush on day 1 and get it, rather wait for a good gift like the Endor diorama that has been seen..
It’s a pity 75252 is a not a big wow I have to get that, some way of integrating an command bridge interior and exclusive Darth Vader would have made this more of a yes I need it...

Gravatar
By in Germany,

Thanks for this comprehensive review!

Personally, I hope that this does not mark the end of "regular" UCS sets around a 200$/Euro price point and that we will see one of those again next year.

I don't have the space to display such a massive model, nor would I feel comfortable spending 700 Euro on a single set. I would be surprised if this set became the same success as the UCS Millennium Falcon. It does not seem to be as iconic or to have the same visual appeal.

Of all the Star Wars sets I own, 75055 remains my favourite. As your photo demonstrates, it fares quite well as a "poor man's representation" of an Imperial Star Destroyer. :-)

Gravatar
By in Australia,

The one thing I'm really interested in (sorry if you covered it in the review, but I didn't see it) is, how heavy is the darn thing?

I mean, the physical dimensions are huge, but the stand just seems impractically flimsy for such a large model.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Great review! I can't wait to build this "gigantor" model.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

I agree that it certainly looks impressive. But at that price, coupled with piss poor minifigures and no interiors, the only other thing that impresses is that it makes 75192 MF look like a bargain.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

Since so many are focused on prices per piece, would be interesting to know the weight of both completed models: 75192 vs 75252. It's quite obvious 75192 larger piece count stems from the abundant amount of greebling (made of tiny pieces) on the Falcon as opposed to the ISD. Also anyone have a comparison of size of 10030 vs 75252?

My only criticisms are there is no interior and the trans light blue on the large engines would look better if they were not so deep inside and were right at the end.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I'd like to see real world pictures of where buyers keep their completed model after construction. I think the phrase 'pride of place' will doubtless be used to describe any such location, but I do wonder how long that epithet is likely to last.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I know there is a very famous ISD MOC out there that blows this thing away in both appearance and details (forgive me for blanking on the creator). Granted, it’s piece count towers over this one. My hope is that maybe that creator, or someone else, will design some “upgrade instructions” for this set.

Gravatar
By in Poland,

This looks really boring. I guess Lego wanted to attract here more SW than bricks fans. I can imagine that for a dedicated SW fan this model might be tempting but from AFOL perspective this is expensive, boring and disappointing with the selection of figs and lack of interior.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Would love it but still got to buy the falcon first.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

If they were going to go to the effort of making the sensor array tilt down to resemble an Imperial-II, why wouldn't they give replacement/optional turbolasers so that all 8 of them could be identical?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Would be worth the price if it came with a ‘we break for nobody’ sign????

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I'd be really interested to know if the reviewer's concluding remarks would've been equally positive if he hadn't received the model for free. The PPP is ludicrous for a set of this size, and the greebling is decent but not as good as it is on 75192 (which came with eight iconic minifigs compared to two disappointing ones here - come on, not even Vader??). In terms of value for money, 75192 knocks 75252 out of the park - the overall shape is much more varied (leading to a much greater variety of building methods), you get some interior scenes in between the structural elements, and the PPP is really reasonable. Or, put differently: with the UCS Millennium Falcon I can see why you would want something that size made out of Lego. It being a Lego set makes sense because it embodies, in many ways, the ultimate Lego set - even as a display piece. With the UCS Star Destroyer, I just don't see it. It's fine as a display piece, but with so little going for it apart from accuracy and size, to me it just doesn't have that 'wow' factor. Definitely not at that price, at least.

(Another point of comparison could be Hogwarts Castle, which is just over half the price of this set, has tons of unique scenes built into it, four exclusive minifigures, and a host of interesting building techniques to boot. To me, that's a much better deal, with its detail and colour despite being microscale, than the Great Grey Triangle.)

@Sintax - I think you're thinking of Raskolnikov's ISD. That's 15k pieces, juuust a bit over the parts budget here ;)

Gravatar
By in United States,

I don’t know if I could recommend this. Though I agree it is a fantastically detailed model, $400+ is just to much to ask of me for a LEGO set, no matter how impressive the model or fair the price.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Thanks once again for the fantastic review!
It's absolutely amazing, I love it. But I won't be getting it. As I stated somewhere else, I own the system scale version which is also excellent for me, so..
Regarding the minifigures: The new Imperial Office is great, it's always nice to be able to add more ranks to one's army/navy.
I'm gladto see the Engineer looks far less overly detailed in these pictures, I actually like them now. Though, again, I'm also very pleased with it's current/previous version.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Huge, dull, grey, overpriced cheese-wedge. An easy pass for me.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

The review very much backs up what I thought. It is clearly a very impressive model and the build looks very interesting for what is effectively a grey wedge. The price though undermines all these positives.

When the Falcon was announced I didn't even blink at the price. Yes, £650 is a ridiculous amount to spend on a Lego set but I was luckily enough to have the money (plus enough to buy a display case, a table for it to go on and the Ninjago City set for my son so I could build the Falcon on my own!) so never hesitated at making it a day 1 purchase. Part of this was because of the great minifigure selection and the detailed interior,

Therefore, I don't get anywhere near the same feeling for this set. The minifigure selection is lamentable. Would it really have cost that much more to at least chuck in a Vader and a couple of Stormtroopers? And, although the review appears to jump from the tower to the finished model without showing how the top section was built, it looks as if there is room for a reasonable size bridge to be included.

With a decent minifigure selection and at least one interior section it would have felt like a £650 set (yes, I understand that weight-wise it probably is a match for the Falcon but piece-count is always going to be a more obvious comparison) and one that I may have considered. Though then probably decided against just because of the lack of space to display it.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

If you want to argue about Price Per Piece please pop off to your local greengrocer and have a moan about the difference in price between single pineapples and cherries.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Very good set. The problem is it is too big and expensive. 75055 is a better choice for most people.

Gravatar
By in United States,

It's a pretty decent set for what it is, but I think the reception would be a lot more positive if they'd just gone ahead and set it at the $800 price point like the Falcon, with 1500-2000 parts going towards minifigures and interior scenes. The parts count would then be 6200-6700 parts for $800 which is still a little low, but everyone would be satisfied except for the strictest of PPP counters.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

As much as I love Lego, that's an awful set. It looks like a huge pile of grey bricks. Something fundamentally is not working with it for me, maybe it wasn't a good spaceship to base a UCS model on. More micro builds of a space fight diorama could've helped with splashes of colour.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@sirventricle
You make good points, but I'd like to point out that the Destroyer is way smaller then microscale.

Gravatar
By in United States,

“Huge, dull, grey”... has no one seen a Star Destroyer? The design look fantastic. However the price... definitely warrants a bunch of included minifigs. If it had minifigs on par with the USC Falcon or better this would be a compelling set. Great review though.

Gravatar
By in France,

Very nice indeed and pretty accurate for sure.
But too expensive for my purse.
For that price I would have appreciated more minifigs and more play value.

Gravatar
By in Denmark,

"If you want to argue about Price Per Piece please pop off to your local greengrocer and have a moan about the difference in price between single pineapples and cherries."

This is close to the only intelligent comment in respect of this set.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

(I deleted my comment because the discussion is going nowhere anyway.)

Gravatar
By in United States,

It's a shame that the comments keep (albeit understandably) coming back to cost, and PPP. Unfortunately, the cost of admission for this set is just so absurd that it overshadows what looks like a very accurate rendition of an ISD.

@tfcrafter in the designer video he mentions having the tractor beam targeting array tilt down to match the ISD-II that appears in Empire and RotJ....except those aren't lowered tractor beam targeting arrays, but rather a communications tower atop the main bridge. I find it odd that difference between the ISD-I and ISD-II wasn't recognized.

I wonder what the overall take would be if Raskolikov's simply incredible ISD didn't exist to compare this one, with its total lack of anything, to. To be fair, his uses almost 4x the pieces as this new UCS model, so there's that.

Plus, I have no idea where I'd display it. It's too wide for my big shelves, and at least I can make a coffee table for my Falcon to live in.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Grey. It’s just grey.
I’m not a huge star wars fan, and it’s way beyond my purchase power, but I find it hard to understand why TLG chose this vehicle over the hundreds of far more interesting subjects.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Zordboy - I do not have scales large enough to weigh 75252-1 Imperial Star Destroyer but know its shipping weight is 13.9kg. 75192-1 Millennium Falcon, by comparison, has a shipping weight of 13kg so I expect the models are quite similar in weight, presuming their packaging is also similar.

@sirventricle - I have purchased many LEGO sets, including 75192-1 Millennium Falcon, so have a good understanding of their relative cost, even without actually buying this one. This set is too expensive in my opinion, as described in the review, but its substantial size should be taken into account. Focusing upon the piece count alone is misleading.

@yuffie - The internal structure of the command bridge section appears in the third image from the end of the 'Construction' section. There is relatively little space inside so internal detail there would be limited.

@MrJackson - The tractor beam targeting array and communication array on the Imperial I-class and Imperial II-class Star Destroyers, respectively, are actually the same object on the studio model. They are simply attached at different angles and I think the set designer was trying to replicate that here.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Looks great. Impressive display model. Ultimately it's too expensive and the size and shape will make it difficult to display unless I decide that I no longer need a house, but a LEGO museum to live in. Actually that sounds fun. Who needs a living room?

In all seriousness, at this cost I would have hoped for an interior. One of the things that has really impressed me about the smaller-scale playable models is how much interior they pack in while still having an impressive size and exterior. While they wouldn't have been able to replicate the bridge in the command tower section, so it would be taking artistic license to locate it elsewhere, think of all the space that scenes could fit in. Even the Falcon UCS fit in a couple interior sections, though that model I also felt could have fit a lot more interior detail to it.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@Mickitat
"(I deleted my comment because the discussion is going nowhere anyway.)"

That is probably because there is not much to discuss here: It's an impressive model with a disappointing/insulting minifigure selection, an impressive/impractical size, and an RRP that kills it.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Robibani: That is indeed a fantastic MOC, but a set of that scale and with that level of interior detail could easily cost several hundred dollars more than this version's already enormous price.

Gravatar
By in United States,

You guys are all talking about the wrong things. The most important question here is whether putting tiles in clips was a legal building technique before this set. Smh...

In all seriousness, this looks like a really well detailed version of the Star Destroyer. I'm definitely not paying that much for it though.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I want to get it but might get the falcon before it retires next year. Same uk price though

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@lyichir I totally agree. But stylistically I think Lego could've taken a similar approach with the design. I do like things to look like they are made of Lego but I think the UCS version really could've done with less studs. It just looks a bit dated.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Is that engine a barrel in disguise? Thanks so much for the review! What an extremely beautiful set and you covered it so well! Nice photography, too.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

I bet for 400 or 500$ you easily can buy the parts you need on bricklink.

Gravatar
By in Sweden,

Please forgive my ignorance, but are the colours seen through the "cheese grater" on the first photo intentional by the designer?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Remember guys!! the more people that spend this kind of money on such an inferior product the more Lego will create of them, remember it's a business and it most certainly try to pull stuff like this and fool gullible people into buying. You don't have to own every set Star wars fans, fight the cause! fight your urges!

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

I still don't understand why this sets contains minifigs. It's a model which you have for display only. Its playability is absolutely none. That can't be the reason. It also isn't minifigure scale at all. So, why????

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

A couple of things need addressing here, first of all complaining it’s a big grey triangle is absolutely ridiculous, that’s exactly what it is in the movies so what did you expect??
The multicoloured interior is no doubt there to aid assembly as Lego has been using this technique for a while now with larger sets as it just makes it easier to build and follow the instructions with different colours.

Where would an interior go? Just about all the internal space is taken up by the huge Technic frame that’s needed to stop this set collapsing under its own weight, also unlike the falcon this set isn’t minifig scale so any interior would be highly disproportionate and now doubt would’ve come under criticism for that too, the frame for the falcon has 4 large empty sections which are ideal for slotting in some interior detail without compromising the structural integrity of the model, although it has to be remembered that UCS sets like this are only really intended for display rather than play which makes interiors rather pointless anyway.
I agree that more minifigs should’ve been included, at least 8 like the falcon especially as the devastator is Vader’s actual ship yet he isn’t included!!!

The price is very high although the actual quantity of plastic you get is comparable to the falcon it still seems based on first impressions at least like this is a poorer deal in comparison though. I don’t see this set being an instant sell out and being hard to get hold of for months like the falcon was, this set just doesn’t have the hype or the same level of excitement surrounding it as I remember for the falcon 2 years ago.

Of course you have to consider that value for money is very subjective and therefore don’t feel I have to “justify” spending so much on a Lego set especially if it’s going to give you hours of building pleasure and the end result is a spectacular display piece to be looked at and admired for hours too, many of my friends and colleagues think I’m stupid for spending so much money on Lego but it’s what I enjoy, others spend money on boozing, smoking, designer clothes, foreign holidays to name a few things which I don’t do, crucially though I don’t criticise those that do want those things as it’s each to their own so if I want to drop £650 on a Lego set and it’s something I’m going to enjoy then I will and I don’t feel the need to justify it to myself or others.

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

well . @ Rex.. the photos of the manuals are pretty shameful (as for the contrast).. every single free photo editor that is out there has a function like "auto adjust" or "auto contrast".. i would definetely use that .. because these two photos are really horrible (from the technical aspect of view).

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@crayxmp To be fair the front cover of the manual is just a repeat of the front of the box which is clear to see and are probably the least important photos too.

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

@ALEGOMan - yes, you might be right. but consider some really hardcore SW fan that wants to build this. He could either this way - getting new ISD or buy the pieces from Bricklink etc.. in that case he surely wont be lucky enough to get them all from one source, so paying for xtra SH + some worrying what if they are not the ones that he needed etc. There might be also some issues with the deliveries like getting them directly from the post office (what do I know).

@mrdoofa Id like to learn one day what was the reason to use MULTIPLE coloured technic / basic elements to form the structural basis. Its all hidden.. why did it have to be a mix of red, blue and other colors? Because they are "cheaper" to manufacture? a surplus on the stock... ? it simply does not make much sense why so many different colours that nobody will ever see again - once the model is completed.

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

@ mrdoofa .. its like you would be pointing out that there are no other pictures of the set or box on the internet. I simply took the liberty to point out a totally unnecessary "weakness" in otherwise a truly superb review. and I still have to say the quality (contrast) of those two pictures is simply terrible. There is no other way how to get around it.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Lego puts exclusive figures in expensive sets: "why does Lego hate minifig collectors, this is so dumb that we have to spend $$$ to get them"

Lego makes expensive set with generic figures: "What a rip off, they could have at least included exclusive minifigs"

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

@ Dash Justice.. I wouldnt say that TLG hates minifigs collectors given the latest development that you can order 19th series as a full box of 60 bags. as for including a "special character" inside a monstrous large uCS set.. it just gives sense from the marketing point of view and frankly, as a businessman I would do pretty much the same to increase the "intrensic" value of that product. either you want it (and buy it) - or get lost. You can always get that "soneone special" through other channels - bricklink, ebay, amazon etc.. why do you think that you are entitled to that right that they HAVE TO GIVE YOU an option to buy it separately? they do not..

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Well there goes my life savings.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Okay, I was mad about the price, but now I see that there is some justification for it. SOME. It's better, but still not great. I will say, it is extremely accurate to the films, though.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Some people have criticized those that bring up the notion that it’s just a “big grey wedge”. The thing is, that’s what it is. As a set, it’s inherently not as interesting or appealing as other ships like the Falcon. As such, part of the value of the set is indeed in the subject material. Some sets are just more interesting than others. It’s harder to ask so much money for a set like this when others like the Falcon are much more exciting.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@crayxmp I know that quite often in Technic sets and could also be the case here as the interior is Technic it can be colour coding different parts of the model, this can be useful when you have to rotate the model lots or flip it over during construction. It can also make things easier when searching for parts in a large pile as looking for different colours is easier than searching amongst a sea of grey parts. Also instructions are easier to follow where different colours are involved, Lego have to cater for both kids building where different colours makes the build easier to follow to people who may have poor eyesight and struggle to tell different colours apart. I don’t think it’s because of surplus stock of certain colours although it could be that certain parts are only made in certain colours and making that part in the correct colour would be pointless if the part is never seen in the finished set.
I think a combination of all these things is the reason for the multi coloured interior.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I still regret that I could never get the first UCS Star Destroyer (and balk at the current price for it, yikes), and so a lot of this model calls out to me. Personally though, I just don't think I could ever justify $700 for it. $400-500 and I'd definitely consider it, but there's enough to just how grey and simplistic it looks on the outside for me to go "oh definitely!" I'll definitely keep my eye on it as LEGO keeps it in stock, but man, I was hoping for something less expensive.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

People say there’s no room for an interior. Don’t agree. The top section including bridge that you build last could surely contain a small area, like the SSD did. The ship doesn’t have to be minifig scale to do this, it would just be a nice addition. Perhaps modders can.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I LOVE reading all the dislike for this set - it only increases my chances of getting one on release day! All joking aside...I like this set way more than the Falcon!

*dodges the volley of rotting vegetables*

Gravatar
By in United States,

Wow, really could have used just a little dark grey to bring out the details

Gravatar
By in France,

Thanks for the review Capn.

Questiion: did you actually enjoy the build? Designer seemed to imply in the video that it “...wasn’t complicated just long...”. This surprised me somewhat

Gravatar
By in Turkey,

I have the 10030, it is hollow, it bows, magnets are hardly working, it has no play value, these are all true. But as a Star Wars and a Lego Fan, there is no other set fits more beautifully than this one on my shelf...

Gravatar
By in Austria,

Doesn't look like an enjoyable build.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I know some people have addressed this, but I will state it again for those who skipped those responses. The Star Destroyer is supposed to be a big stupid grey triangle. Have you folks never seen a star destroyer because it seems you all have not? And to those comparing this set to the amazing ISD MOC's are fools. Sure they are great but they were built without restrictions of budget, deadlines, stability, and etc. Its the same as saying why isn't my local middle school sports team not as good as the professional teams that you see on TV. And I actually do have one of the great ISD MOC's in my collection and I still think this set is pretty good. Also, if you were to tile it up it could rival the Monarch or Aggressor, but not the 50K ISD flagship of a certain SW character by an absolutely amazing builder (I will not specify who as only people who have seen and appreciate the MOC and builder will know from the hints I've given). Also complaining about no interior is quite short-sighted as the build without an interior is already so expensive and adding one will raise the price to or above the MF. Also why not just add your own interior anyways, the MF interior design is pretty mediocre (to be nice) and many people have changed it to be better, so why can't you? Too lazy? But yah having an interior in a set is always impressive.

Asides from my defensive rant, for me I think this review just confirmed my initial opinion on it that this just meets my expectations as a design. Details are good, the accuracy is quite impressive rather than good because I thought the designer was going to mess up because of the existence of 2 ISD film models (in-universe the MKI & MKII). The adjusting sensor array is just a no-no. If your going to do that at LEAST give us a separate communications array and octuple turbo laser turrets to make it look like an ISD II. The designer probably got confused when looking at the set photos. The price is actually not that bad if you do a price per mass ratio. Assuming the MF is actually 13.9kg and the ISD is 13kg the MF is $0.0576 per gram and the ISD is $0.0538 per gram (US only, sorry England, but IDK what's wrong with your currency). So actually you are getting a better deal on the ISD (and remember there are a bunch of large pieces in the ISD). And PPP is not really a great way to look at sets like this. As incorrect and convenient as is, it is only (barely) relevant for small $20-$80 sets. The only complaint that I think is valid is the minifigures. Just two? This set is not the X-wing or Tie fighter where only one figure is really all it needs, this is supposed to be a space battleship that has lots and lots of crew to operate it. So giving us two is just poor and lazy from LEGO's end. As long as they are relevant I am fine with whatever figs they put. Just having two is not enough. 5-8 would be good and probably will satisfy some price-angry customers. But that's the only real complaint I got... Definitely gonna get the MF first before it retires though.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@CapnRex101 there are no new pieces on this set correct? Maybe some in new colors perhaps?

Gravatar
By in Poland,

Thanks for confirming is horrible set for that price.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

"inferior people" - Nice going deriding someone criticising a Lego set. Great way to let the thread descend into another one that leads to posts like "Why all the negativity". And great way to prove my point.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Looks amazing once built, but it's just hard to unsee the vast emptiness on the inside. Maybe it's the first in the Ultimate Collector Pinata Series - 75252 Grey Pinata.

Maybe Lego will include a free giant bag of candy so we can at least fill it up once it's complete.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

I will skip all the obvious negatives which have already been pointed out by many.
Trying to look at it objectively, my main remaining gripe would be that you can see a lot of the multicoulour interior through the various gaps, as demonstrated in several of the photos in the review.

I know that LEGO loves colour-coding these days, and while I myself hate it in every set in my collection that has it, I understand why TLG might think it is necessary nowadays. Same reason why instructions nowadays have to cater for kids who are not able to to grasp and handle the immensely complicated instructions of old anymore. *endsarcasm*

So, even if they use colour-coding, couldn't they at least have used muted colours like black or dark bluish grey in those areas where the interior parts are visible through gaps on the final model? Seems like not thinking things through to me.

Also funny how similar many building techniques are to Anio's Venator MOC. Sure, this one is more sophisticated thanks to many rounds of optimization no doubt, but still imho the Venator is the more attractive set, thanks not least due to the splashes of colour in the details on that one.

In that I agree with all who describe this as a boring light bluish grey triangle. Because that is exactly how it appears to the normal eye under normal lighting conditions. TLG tried to trick us in the box art by heavily manipulating the image with artificial shadows, which makes the model look far more impressive (a technique also used on the original filming model). Perhaps one could install special lighting at home to mimic this effect in the display cabinet used, but I think it would be quite hard to achieve.

Summing up, I would so much like to love this set, but the all the negatives combined just sour the experience too much for me. Then again, so much money saved to spend on other great sets. One always has to see the positives as well. :-)

Gravatar
By in Australia,

What are you supposed to do with 5-8 minifigs if there is no interior?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Having seen it on display in Leicester Square yesterday under fairly flat lighting I’m more than happy with it, I have not built mine yet but once the shelf is fitted will be getting pride of place.

Gravatar
By in Belgium,

Nice set.
Instead of new mini-figures, it would have been very nice if they could have added a few mini ships to the set in addition to the Blockade Runner and that one Tie. Such as the Millennium Falcon, the Slave 1, B-wing, even more tiny ties, X-wings, etc. It would have added more action and vividness to the set for sure.

Gravatar
By in Belgium,

Has anyone got a comparison picture of this one and the 10030. Would love to see the both next to eachother. Of course you need to have a very big table :-)...

Gravatar
By in United States,

This is all hilarious...especially the commenter who included not one single thought about the set but just had to attack me for my sincere and complete review!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

On the subject of cost. This set is approximately the same weight as the latest UCS Falcon, this is, in the UK, reflected in the price of both sets being £650. Which makes sense. However here in Norway the Falcon costs approximately £800 and yet the Stardestroyer will cost approximately £600. £200 difference between comparable weight sets is incredible. It indicates to me that set pricing has nothing to do with part count or weight but purely on how much TLG thinks people will be willing to pay.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I think the discussion about display space will be irrelevant to most.

Those that love it will make space, buy furniture etc.

Unfortunately, the crying shame is that I predict less than half of these sets will ever get built. This set seems more and more to me like an “investor” purchase (uurrrgghh!) to sit in it’s box with the UCS MF in the vain hope the price of the pair will triple in ten years time. I despise the concept, but that’s a personal opinion.

I’m going to focus on £150-200 UCS sets and make sure I keep my collection ticking over by getting the Y-Wing before it retires. Just as much detail but at a real world price.

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

@mrdoofa thanks for the explanation on the bright coloured bricks inside, that makes sense.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@thatStructVector, see my post about it being a big grey wedge. Yes, that is what the subject material is. But that just means it makes for a set that’s less interesting than many Star Wars sets. As such, to be appealing to people it has to have something more to it than just being accurate to the material.

It’s a boring set. So having to pay so much for what you get is difficult to swallow. The MF is exciting. It’s easier to fork over that much money.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I mean you're not wrong about that. And I do agree that the MF is a better choice too (this set made me reconsider haha). But I guess only people who appreciate and are fans of Imperial ships would enjoy this set. Doesn't deny the fact that this ship is one of the most iconic ships in sci-fi history.

Gravatar
By in Austria,

In this case I'd rather go with a much cheaper Revell model kit for display purposes. Sure, you could do the same for the MF, but at least that one looks like a fun build and has the greebliness-factor in its favour.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Meh, could have been bigger.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

This is getting just as much if not more negativity than the "Assault on Hoth Large Scale Set". I'm just grateful we are getting an UCS Imperial Star Destroyer at all. Furthermore, this ship is a display model. An interior would be pointless and end up making it even more expensive.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Great looking set, I’ve been on the fence for a while but I just can’t get past the colossal price. If I didn’t know the price, looking at I’d say maybe £300 at a push. I agree ppp is irrelevant but visually I just don’t see northwards of £600 in value here sadly...

Gravatar
By in Australia,

Great review for my favourite ship in the SW Universe. I love this stunning beast, it is majestic and beautiful, everything a Star Destroyer should be !

Oh, and I much prefer this to my MF - it will have to now take a back seat - sorry.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Let's get down to the real question, how much will it be for just the two minifgures?

Gravatar
By in Italy,

When I went to the LEGO store to buy this, I saw the model build and I smiled. Now that I builded myself, when I enter in my LEGO room, I smile.
This set is INCREDIBLE. It's a piece of art for me.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I balked at the price when I saw this. 650, when the falcon is 650 and far more impressive. I guess the exchange rate doesn't help.

Then there's the grey, I agree its true to the film, but I would much prefer if there was some attempt to create some effect to make it a bit more interesting. Metallic pieces, more tones of grey, interior, something.. Anything!

Looking at the box art makes it look awesome...
However, seeing it in the flesh, it's massively dissapointing.

In some ways I'm glad. Expensive and dull makes it much easier not to buy. The falcon was irrisitble. Hogwarts looks amazing. The chiron and porsche look amazing on the shelf. This doesn't. It just looks grey, and all the grey blends to make it look 'flat'.

I have to accept its true to the film, but just lacks everything (except the price) that makes the falcon, and other cheaper lego sets, 'must haves'.

I think sales will be low on this. I wanted to want it. I don't

Gravatar
By in Romania,

£650... No way! I sent Lego an email asking them to justify the cost. This is their reply.

Thanks for getting in touch with us.  I'm very sorry for the late reply we have had more emails than usual and working on getting back to our fans.

I’m sorry you’re not happy with the price of our new LEGO® Star Wars™ Imperial Star Destroyer™ (75252). We’re very lucky to have so many loyal LEGO fans around the world and we’re always pleased to get feedback.

Finding the right price for a set isn’t easy and we take many factors into consideration. When the original LEGO Star Destroyer first launched it was one of our largest models. But the new model is even longer, bigger and taller than the original while also offering much more detail in its design. This makes it the biggest Star Destroyer model ever and is our most accurate representation to date of the original model seen in Episode IV – A New Hope.

We’ve added many more features that make this model a unique building experience:

A brand new construction with the inner structure made entirely out of Technic elements that makes the model more rigid.A lot of larger pieces add to the structural integrity of the model and turn this Star Destroyer into a real heavyweight.2 exclusive minifiguresA handle so the whole model can be easily lifted and flown from Alderaan, Yavin, the Death Star or anywhere else in a galaxy far, far away.A highly detailed bridge with a retractable tractor beam antenna.

Last but not least, you’ll notice that we included a to-scale model of a Tantive IV™ which can be put into the Star Destroyer’s docking bay. Having this ship included lets you reenact both the escape sequence at the end of Rogue One™ as well as the boarding scene from Episode IV. The only thing missing is a tractor beam (we haven’t quite mastered that technology yet)!

As for why it is the same price as the Millennium Falcon™ but contains less parts, I found out that even though the new set contains less part the parts that are used are bigger parts and cost more to make these parts unlike the Millennium Falcon that contains a lot more smaller parts which cost the factory less to make.

I’d like to thank you for your open and honest words and I’m passing your feedback on to the team in charge of pricing our sets.

We want to make sure we're doing a good job for you, so you’ll always find the link to a four-question survey in our emails. Please tell us how we did today:

Please let us know if you need anything else.

Kind regards,

Jennifer
LEGO® Customer Service

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Nice review, thanks.

I recently saw this model in MK Lego shop and was a bit disappointed. Aside from the obvious detailing along the sides, which is very good, it's just a large and uninspiring triangular expanse of studded grey base boards. But I guess that could just be the nature of the original subject matter.

I also agree with many other posters and think it needed more minifigures and a detailed interior. If cost was an issue a slightly smaller model would have been a good compromise.

Either way, I doubt I'll be parting with £650.00 for the privilege of owning it. I might consider purchasing it if it ever becomes heavily discounted though.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Great review. $ 700.00 is making sets like this too expensive for the average AFOL, not to mention kids. I won't be buying this one.

Gravatar
By in United States,

How's this compare to the executor 10221 ?

View more reviews »
Return to home page »