How expensive is too expensive?

I only spent 1 time134€ The Mandalorian Ship and 104 € The Secret of Chamber set (thanks to disccounts), and 1 time 180 for the Darth Malgus set because what I bought through the brick link. My economy is very limited.

I own every non-bust / figure Star Wars UCS except 10188 Death Star, 75159 Death Star 2, 75192 2nd Millennium Falcon, 75222 Cloud City and 75098 Hoth. For me it depends on the quality of the sets and these fell short (the 2nd MF wasn't enough of an improvement over the first for its price). I am definitely buying the AT-AT since it's one of my favourite Star Wars vehicles. For the right set (eg. the medical frigate or a GOOD Cloud City or Hoth set) I'd even go over $800, but it'd have to be pretty good.

The most I spent on one set is PLN 6500 (about $1600-1700). This set was the 10179 UCS Millennium Falcon.

@NathanR2015 said:
"I'd love to get sets like 75252 Star Destroyer, or 10294 Titanic. If they'd been just a little bit smaller, I would have bought them in a heartbeat. As it is, Lego lost a sale.
"

I completely agree. It's frustrating to see these sets coming out that I'd love to have, but my goodness, I can NOT justify their prices. The Titanic would have been a day one buy for me at 1/4 - 1/2 the size and price.

The UCS Republic Gunship is the most expensive set I've bought at $350. My absolute max is $500, and even that would be incredibly rare.

The most telling part of the poll question is the "provided fair value" part. AT-AT doesn't feel like fair value to me, too expensive. But I've bought expensive (over £200) sets that felt like fair value. Titanic feels like fair value, but it's huge.
Some models I buy to build then take apart & use for something else. Some I buy for long-term display or play. Others I buy just for parts. "Fair value" is slightly different for each type of buying.
The problem with the very largest sets isn't so much the value as the size - I'm considering the Titanic but would have to create space to display it.

Millenium Falcón 2007 = £342 now it’s like £552 with inflation :/

The most I've ever spent on a single set was $270 on the Lamborghini Sian with $110 in VIP points to get it down from RRP of $380. That was a gift for a friend, and even then half of the VIP points were actually his, not mine (he sent me the redemption codes to use when buying him the set). The most I've ever spent on a single set for myself was $200 for the Space Shuttle Discovery. I want a whole bunch of sets in the $100-$300 range but obviously I can't afford to buy them all.

The increasing prices of big D2C models and their increasing number also make me uneasy from a perspective of income inequality. Not to virtue signal, because I'm really really bad at actually following through with what I'm about to say, but the more expensive Lego gets and the more income inequality increases and the more the pandemic and associated economic troubles drag on, the worse I feel about buying Lego and the more I feel like that Lego money should go to the food bank instead.

Lego prices have been taking the mick for a few years now.

The prices you have to spend to get freebies are getting stupid.

Advertise promos then change to detail on their system to pretend that it wasn't there when you ordered, even though it's listed on your paypal reciept.

So much wasted opportunity with Technic too.

These days I feel like if Im going to spend so much on a set, it might as well be retired and something well probably never get again. For example, Im much happier to have gotten both Helms Deep sets and a Legolas minifig for the same price as the AT AT. The AT AT hadnt been revealed then, but even now having seen it, I know Id just be kind of disappointed if Id spent that much on a new set instead of a classic. To be completely honest thats actually a bad comparison, as I like LOTR much more than SW and the AT AT is probably one of my least favorite vehicles, but still, I think you get the point.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"Regarding the price of both 10030 and 10143 being $300 USD, not $270."
You may be correct, but are those prices recorded anywhere online or in catalogues?"

$269,99 for the 10030 ISD? That's pretty amazing value compared to what I'd always assumed! I have three SHOP @HOME catalogues from the early 2000s that actually price it (and the 10143 DSII) at 369,99 euros in the Netherlands...

I have fond memories of the Lego road shows in larger departmental stores in Germany in the late 80s/90s. I consider anything North of 300 € worth to be displayed in such exhibitions but feel no urge to own such highly detailed models. Only exception is 10188 Death Star which is basically many sets in one. A Star Wars UCS Medical Frigate might tempt me. But cannot be more than 300 Euro. I have the money but it just feels ridiculous to me to spend so much money on something that basically is still a kid's toy. And now that I consider my collection be too big anyways, I have to pick new sets wisely.

The most expensive set I own is the AT-AT from 2020 at 150 euro (around 160 because of where I bought it). I can't see myself spending more on sets unless there is some huge appeal (like a giant Castle set), but even then I don't plan on going over 200 euro.

I hope that there will be a UCS republic cruiser to exceed $800. I will buy that myself for sure.

If Lego put out some kind of anniversary product celebrating classic/legacy space or something to that effect, sky's the limit, I'd buy it first and worry about the price later.

There was little to no hesitation on Barracuda Bay, though that wasn't nearly as expensive as a UCS model. I think I would be willing to drop $1,000 without question, especially since I've already spent well more than that combined on actual legacy space sets.

The most expensive new set I bought was 75192 Millennia Falcon. I've paid € 575 for it at a French webshop. After building it I sold it for € 600.

I've spent more money on a second-hand set. About € 800 on the Green Grocer. And that one came without a box and instructions.

$400 is the most I've spent on a new set, though I have spent $500 on the retired Cloud City. I wouldn't go more than that.

A new Super Star Destroyer will probably cost more than 800 bucks...

My most extreme LEGO purchase was back in 2019 when I paid what was pretty much a full month's wage (2200 euros) on a complete misb Lord of the Rings and Hobbit collection (26 sets). It felt like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it turned out it really was, since prices are slowly creeping up to 3000/3500 euros for the same collection now. However, I cannot imagine ever spending more than 800 euros on a single LEGO set... Most I ever paid was 700 euros for the 2017 Millennium Falcon.

I voted for $500 but I did spend £650 on the Millennium Falcon.
The problem, as I see it, involves having two UCS Star Wars sets each year. If one was more reasonably priced then maybe buying both could be an option. I just think that spending over a grand on just two UCS sets each year is excessive.

£100 is easily the limit for me - life in the UK is not cheap!

I would drop 500 on a BIG set, like the Falcon or AT-AT. But anything past that pricepoint is insane to me.

A creator expert train set (based of an actual train) may persuade me to pay up to $250, but that would be the limit.

I could maybe se myself spending up to $500 on a set, but no more than one per year. Up to $250 is a more reasonable price. My issue with the number of expensive sets is how many are coming out in a relatively short time. I love LEGO and I love Star Wars, but I just can't justify buying any of the massive Star Wars sets. I would love to get the Millennium Falcon and the AT-AT would be great too, but there's no way I could justify getting both - even one would be a stretch.

Gimme some breathing room LEGO!

$500 would be mine, but the AT-AT is looking like an exception...

$250 is about as much as I'm willing to spend on a modern day LEGO set HOWEVER, if it's something from the early 2000s - early 2010s or a theme we haven't gotten LEGO sets from in a while like Space or Castle, I would be willing to spend over $500 if I had the money, but because I do not at the current moment, I'm very selective on how I spend my money on LEGO, and I don't see many LEGO sets over $100 releasing right now that seem like they're worth the money.

Does anyone else remember when a new Ideas set came out, and you didn't have to take out a second mortgage on your house to afford it?

These days, while the Ideas sets are gorgeous and huge, but every single one of them is monstrously expensive. You reach a point where it's too hard to keep up. I finally picked up Barracuda Bay recently, and I love it, but I'm broke until January, you know?

Hell, I remember the early Monkie Kid sets. The smallest, entry-level set was $50 (!). I doubt that was accidental.

I only have two "large" sets. Slave I UCS and Saturn V. Like others, I think about what else the money can buy. That stopped me recently buying the ISS and that's only £65.

There are some older sets I would really like - Fort Legoredo, a few studded technic ones, but the price is climbing there too.

I also think a lot of fun can be had from smaller sets. And you can always make something bigger for yourself. The joy of Lego is breaking it up and rebuilding it right? Not spend £500-600 and keeping it stuck together forever. That's my thought anyway!

If I won a lot of money to spend on Lego I think it would still be focused on smaller / medium sets and vintage sets.

My favorite build to date is the old typewriter. Fantastic experience. We did buy the Titanic for Christmas. That’s about as mich as I ever want to pay. Looking forward to it.

For me, it really depends on the set, and the size. The UCS Millennium Falcon, Star Destroyer, and Gunship, as well as the Colosseum, I wouldn't bother buying (regardless of price) since they have such big footprints. I do have the Cantina, that's not too large. Also have the Hogwarts castle which I got at a discount, which makes the large size more palatable. The AT-AT doesn't have the size problem that the aforementioned ones do, but I do think the price is wack - $950 CAD plus taxes, nope.

Conversely, I would happily pay full price for the Titanic if I could figure out a display setup, since it's so long. Yes, it's big, but I have a historical interest.

If (theoretically) LEGO were to do another wave of Lord of the Rings or Hobbit sets, I'd be fully on board. Show me a scale model of Barad-dur, Minas Tirith, or Meduseld, and I'll be all "shut up and take my money". It's really up to the customer and what they are interested in.

I don't object to oversized kits with matching prices, but there's been several in the past couple of years, and a few of those just in this year. Space them out more.

Large very expensive sets ($300+) are a build once and display kinda set. And I only have enough room for a couple of those. I have sold about 90% of my collection in the last 5 years but still have a few and buy a few. Not sure how expensive too expensive is but I am extremely choosey about buying one. I have the $800 falcon but won't build it cause I can't put it anywhere. I wouldn't buy the Titanic because, although cool, just doesn't fit into my new very slim radar. I won't buy the AT-AT because I had the original and sold it and just don't feel like building 4 legs again. I like some of the $100 model sets because they fit in one section of my book shelf.

The options in this poll is bad (as already commented by some people above). What if some people would only spend $200 or below? It doesn't have that option, guess they are forced to choose $250 or just give up, but voting is the only way to see the results. Pretty sure there are people who would even spend less than $100 max or maybe even $80. And the option of "I would spend any amount on LEGO" is silly. Really? Would you spend $10k or $100k on a lego set if they make one, or $1 million? $10 million? If theoretically they make a huge set with real gold or something or a really really big set? Maybe have more than 5 options if possible. Or something like this:
$100 or lower
$100-250
$250-500
$500-800
$800-1000
$1000+

I've never gone over £144 for one set, but I would consider going up to around £250 for something I really wanted, like if Ninjago City was re-released. I really considered shelling out for Diagon Alley, but couldn't justify it.

I put "I would spend any amount on LEGO". I'm privileged enough to be able to purchase most sets I like (not all of them, mind you. I also have a very small space, so I don't buy some sets because I don't have the space). Nevertheless, it's still strange to spend a whole lot of money on a set. When I heard rumors about the AT-AT, I started to put money aside. Now, I have the money and will get it, but I'm still uncomfortable spending above $1,000 canadian on a LEGO set...

I can see myself spending $800 on a really spectacular Lego set. The problem for me is not so much the money as the space--and that's becoming a very big problem, because any "really spectacular" set retailing for $800 is very, very unlikely to be small enough to fit with everything else I have. Even the Titanic, which I greeted with cries of joy and a burning desire to clear out my wish list to allow me to buy it, now leaves me feeling that once I'd built it there'd be nothing left to do but sell it on.

Fortunately, I don't have to buy all the biggest sets to be happy with my Lego collection. As long as I concentrate on what really gives me pleasure, that will be good enough. More than good enough, in fact.

Lego is an expensive hobby. I offset costs of sets I want be selling extra stuff I pick up here and there, such as parting out sets I pick up from clearances or selling stuff I don’t want anymore, or even a GWP I don’t want. The best thing for me is let my hobby help pay for itself!

You need to remember that the Star Wars license tends to inflate a set slightly, making sets of similar size to City more expensive. And I'm unsure if LEGO need, or how expensive a licence for the Titanic or Colloseum would be, but I think a non licenced set needs to break $1000 before we can truly say they've done it. Or create $1400 Star Wars set to be sure.

Objectively, $500 is my limit, since I bought 75159 a couple years ago, though I consider that an exception rather than a rule. The only set I've otherwise purchased to hit the $200 price point is the UCS Slave I, and it doesn't help that the majority of Lego Star Wars sets tend to severely decrease in value beyond that price point, not even considering assembly time and space requirements. I like to think less is more, and 75309 and 71935 are pretty good examples of that. The gunship would be much more enticing for $200 (assuming, of course, a smaller design), and the vignettes in 71935 would be nearly instant purchases if they were either released separately for a much reduced price point. The dramatic increase of sets being introduced at these price points doesn't help matters either, since for the most part, other themes offer a significantly better value than Lego Star Wars. 10290 and 71374 are all much more interesting and valuable models I feel like, and much easier to justify. Not to mention the Modular Buildings and Ninjago City sets, and all of the great Ideas sets (even though I really wish so many of them weren't so expensive and licensed either). But, it's Lego Star Wars, and they can sell whatever they want for as much as they want, because a lot of people will buy it anyways.

At this point in time around AUD500 is my limit. Mos Eisley Cantina at $529.99 and JP T Rex Rampage at $400 are my most expensive. Lack of display space and storage space is a key factor in why my purchases have dropped over last couple of years. Once built they're displayed for a short time and then dismantled and put under the bed!

For me? The most I'd pay for a set is $200. That being said, that's all I could comfortably afford.

I'd love to buy the $800 Falcon, Star Destroyer, AT-AT sets, I just can't. I do think they're slightly high, maybe $600 is reasonable?

I dont think there's necessarily an upper limit for me, but what's more important is whether the set is actually worth the cost, which is increasingly often *not* the case. Sure I spent $1300 on the new UCS falcon, but that's only because I'd spent literally half my life at that point desperately longing for the old one. As demonstrating by the surprising number and size of discounts that set saw here, it wasnt actually a good price for it.

So, no, I dont believe there's an upper price limit that's necessarily a problem for me. Its value for money where TLG's really taking the piss

I'm very concerned about these sets getting bigger and bigger and more and more expensive. Some people would pay just about anything, but to pay $1000+ AU all at once on Lego is just getting ridiculous. Who can afford that?

Yes, there will always be people who will pay whatever price to get their AT AT, Falcon, Harry Potter Castle, etc. but for the overall market I think Lego should try and make sets a bit more within a general price range.

Take the modulars. They are usually around $250 AU. This is still a lot of money, but within a reasonable price range, especially given their size and detail (compared to say, these $200 City sets with facades and cars that you can buy for $185 cheaper).
Sometimes we have had 'special' modulars that are more expensive, like Town Hall ($300 AU), Assembly Square ($400 AU, being an extra half modular and the 10th anniversary). Corner Garage was just a rip off.

I believe Police Station was $300 due to its larger size but my point is, Lego wouldn't go around selling a whole modular street for example in one set for $1000. There would undoubtedly be some people who would buy it, but its just a silly idea and locks out a huge potential market.

For licensed things like SW and HP there are some diehard fans who will pay the Earth but there definitely should be a limit, personally I wouldnt go much over $400 and that would need to be a really spectacular set like a 25th anniversary modular building with a whole street or something.

I guess $500 in some cases could work for licensed products but I would argue anything over $500 AU is just way too expensive for any Lego set. It doesnt matter what the value is, $500 is half a grand. For some people it's a month's pay. And particularly during these current times (I hear the market will take a dive soon), plus COVID obviously, it seems rather silly putting out sets with crazy prices like $750, $990, $1000+ when most potential customers are struggling to pay rent.

I liked the Blacksmith for example, but $250 was just too much in that case. Looking at the set in person I can sort of see $250 but when compared to 'the amount of stuff you get' as Jangbricks says to say, a modular building, I didn't see the value. Value, of course, is subjective, and I was also largely put off due to the different scale that would make my castles look tiny.

POBB on the other hand I wasn't keen on spending $300 on Lego but a ship usually costs around $200-$250, plus one got an island and a 2 in 1 set (and a Pirates set is unlikely to ever be released again).

Given that people will drop $800 for a used Emerald Night ($100/1000pcs), modular, or $3000 for a large MOC, there really is no upper limit on what Lego could charge for a set. If it's the right set and people want it, Lego can make money on that $5000/40,000pcs USC Jar Jar Bust...

Here in New Zealand $1500 is the top amount to date, the new AT AT and the UCS Falcon.
I can see that only going higher once something is released at $1000USD.
But as said above you can pay much more then that for retired sets like a couple of the original Modulars and of course if you're doing a MOC. I would have spent around $2800 on the ISD Aggressor so it is all relative.

It took me a couple months to be sure I could pay for the $150 AT-AT and not kill my entire entertainment budget, and I know I am luckier than many in that respect; I dismissed the rumors of UCS AT-AT because I thought an $800 potential price was ludicrous. I was wrong.

@CapnRex101:
Absolutely it’s recorded in LEGO.com catalogs, but I don’t have them stored in a neatly sorted manner. I do, however, have internet. Unfortunately, I found conflicting info:

10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
$300 US - http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/10030-1
$270 US - https://forum.rebelscum.com/threads/10030-ucs-imperial-star-destroyer.843721/

10143 Death Star II
$300 US - http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/10143-1
$270 US - https://forum.rebelscum.com/threads/10143-ucs-death-star-ii.1032392/

I would want to see an actual catalog, or photo thereof before making claims about which is right. Maybe if I’d bought either of them, I’d be more certain of my recollection.

@Train_of_Thought_Creations:
I have four MOCs that have each cost in the $400 range (and that’s _after_ scrounging as many parts as I can from my collection). I have at least four more that I intend to build that will likely cost $400+ each. My spending tends to swing back and forth between set-heavy years and MOC-heavy years, and the last few years have been more about sets.

@PixelTheDragon:
Pooh costs $99.99 US. I was just at our local LEGO Store yesterday, and specifically remember noting the price. There are a few, like Bonsai, that go as low as $70, but I can’t recall any lower than that. Also, someone in my LUG noted that the store layout has really skewed to sets for kids on one side of the store, and black boxes on the other side. I responded that this isn’t completely true, as the “adults” side includes all of the Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Ninjago sets (plus maybe one other theme), but those are all grouped at the far end of the wall, and everything between SW and the front of the store is from the 18+ line for sure.

@WelshSarastro:
It doesn’t always have to be larger. The second UCS MF raised the piece count almost 60%, but the models are about the same size. The Death Star II looks really clunky by current standards, with much of the “in progress” side consisting of basic 2x plates. Imagine that redone where all the jutting sections are individually designed, and built from multiple parts. Imagine the “smooth” side actually having some roundness to it besides the shape of LEGO studs.

@Bulletbob:
I’ve seen a six foot tall MOC of Barad-dur in Chicago, and one of the guys in my LUG has a MOC of Orthanc that’s of a similar height. Consequently, the Orthanc set, and any $500 Barad-dur set wouldn’t pose an risk of the floor receiving a dent shaped like my jaw.

@deathmoth:
Any comparable models of the two Death Stars should result in DS2 costing more than DS1. The latter is just a basic sphere with a dent in the side. The former has a very complex, half-constructed side that should actually use more parts in spite of being smaller and “less” constructed.

I am afraid that TLG is between a rock and a hard place.

As many comments above have suggested, the sheer size of larger models makes the potential purchase difficult to justify. I personally have an upper limit on what I am willing to buy and display for a while before breaking it down:

Mercedes-Benz Arocs 3245 42043-1
Pirates of Barracuda Bay 21322-1
Tower of Orthanc 10237-1
6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler 42114-1
Medieval Blacksmith 21325-1
etc.

On the other hand, TLG cannot just release a smaller-size but highly detailed set containing thousands of 1x1 tiles or alike for more than 10 cents apiece since that would be a daylight robbery and people would scream bloody murder.

Not sure what the realistic upper $ limit is. However, I do expect TLG to slowly increase piece count by adding more details and also increase the per-piece cost without significantly increasing the maximum model size. The new AT-AT seems like a reasonable limit, at least to me.

Besides price and space to display, I think there is another factor: space and ease to build.

The introduction of numbered bags made those very huge and pricey sets possible.

I started buying LEGO sets in 2016. Most of the sets I bought use numbered bags.

When I built 10220: Volkswagen T1 Camper Van, the time and difficulty increased drastically, as the bags were not numbered.

At some point, 10214: Tower Bridge was on big discount and I planned to buy it. Then I remembered the experience of 10220. After checking the review and learning that the bags were not numbered, I decided not to buy it. There is simply not enough space to layout the 4000+ pieces.

So, I think for those sets that can be split into sections such as Titanic or those stadium sets, it would probably be growable.

For the huge Star War vehicle sets that first built the frame, and then covered the body section by section, too much effort would have to be spent on moving the frame and body sections around. It may no longer be an enjoyable building experience.

$400 is my limit...but I could probably talk myself into spending $500 for the right reasons, but it would have to REALLY appeal to me on a spiritual level. I'm not sure there's any Star Wars set that could...and I'm a BIG Star Wars fan.

Here's a question for people in the United States who cycle through selling off older sets from their collection to pay for newer ones, how do you report it on your taxes? I've thought about doing that with some older sets I don't care for anymore, but then I'm always like, taxes are scary and confusing enough as it is!

The price (although prohibitive) is second to the set itself. If I want it, I will save and forgo other sets. If I don't want it, then I am happy for those who do and will get a chance to have it.

My dilemma is in space, I simply don't have that much and have sold older sets to make way for new. However, they shouldn't scale down great sets because I don't have room, as long as there are other options and sets that I like - that's great.

I can't have everything.

@kslin88:
While setting up our display at Henry Ford Museum, I was actually discussing that very issue with another member of my LUG. I built 10179 in under 19 hours, spread over two days. The bags were not only not numbered, but they repeated as many as nine times, which was clearly done to make packing more efficient, but once you factor remainders in, you might need to find the same part in as many as ten different bags. It was a chore to build that set. The new version bumps the piece count by nearly 60%, but the bags come numbered, and are packed into numbered internal boxes. Pull out Box 1, start with Bag 1, and work your way through until the box is empty. Start Box 2, etc. I haven’t built my copy of UCS MF2, but just given the difference in how the set was packed, I expect it will take less time to build than the original did.

@iwybs:
I don’t tend to sell anything once I buy it, so I don’t have direct experience with that, but I do know there’s a spot for misc income, if nothing else. The IRS covers nearly every way there is to earn money (crypto currency and video game loot boxes are two notable exceptions), and tax evasion was even what brought down Al Capone.

Regarding the prices of the Star Destroyer and Death Star, the Star Destroyer had a price of $299.99 and the Death Star was of $299.00. But starting in the January 2008 catalog they were both given a "New lower price" of $269.99

I am just tired of huge sets. They are not even that good.
The UCS Falcon is a mess and I was really suprised its an official model. Its really fragile.
The only BIG set I consider good is the Deathstar.

I went with $500. And I can’t believe I did. For so long I wanted to get The Executor but couldn’t fathom spending $400 on a set. Now I own Diagon Alley & quite a few that are at or close to $300 price point.

Personally, I can't stomach 800 for much of anything, let alone Legos that I love. Not necessarily because I can't afford it, but it's really just too expensive for a toy, granted the best toys. I think a max number should be in the 250 range and most comments talking about piece count are correct in that Lego needs to let go of the 10 cents per piece thing. All that said, I would love to see Jabbas Palace with the Rancor pit attached in a UCS version. Honestly, I'm not sure how it's gone this long without having it already. Two off the most popular and sought after sets.... Just my 2 cents.

*Establishing context, I claim all LEGO sets are still toys for children. The 18+ sets do not differ from anything else in terms of parts, safety, building techniques or the level of to which instructions are dumbed down; only perhaps in that most practical playablity has been lost due to subject matter and/or sheer scale.
From a child's viewpoint there are always these largest sets out there to dream about. Most never get them, and will make the most of the smaller ones, but they are well aware of the "big fish". For quite many those larger sets were attainable if you just saved up (allowance, birthday money, working...) - you could make it work. In 1991 the most expensive set cost 50 times more than the cheapest sets and the best ones were usually at 20-25x. In 2021 the spread has reach to 200x and wishlist starts from 30-40x (120...160 EUR). Today those largest and most elaborate sets are simply out of reach, but 30 years ago they wouldn't have been. Plus there are way too many to choose from and before you know it they are discontinued. The best ones, like even the relatively affordable and available Chinese New Year sets, may be long sold out by the time a kid saves up. Our State family benefits are 60€/per child/per month and half of that I give my kids for allowance (the other half goes to their savingsacc.). Let's say if by some miracle one of them constantly manages to save up half of any "income", it would take more than 2 years to buy a MF or an AT-AT, luckily no-one here cares that deeply about the SW franchise. But then there are Hogwarts and Diagon Alley still on the wishlist which probably will yet again have to give way now to the upcoming expensive Ninjago City set.
All-in-all there are too many large sets released too often and the frustration of constantly missing out on tens upon tens of cool sets is bothering the collector in me and I'm sure this is the main reason I feel indifference creeping up (even a few years ago I wouldn't have ignored 80% off VIDIYO BeatBoxes I saw on sale yesterday). I suppose any child will feel much worse if despite all honest efforts he can't have even the one set he's been saving for during a considerable period of his young life and it is unfortunate it will be LEGO who has disappointed him (sour grapes).

I hope LEGO selects some other IP than SW to make the next huge 10000+ piece set and drops the ppp below 5-6c. I'm looking at the Architecture theme above all. 10000 parts is about right for NYC WTC1 (2in1, built either WTC1 or WTC2), the 110-story replica would be mostly 16x16 plates, radiator grilles and plates with rail, but at least the build will be repetitive enough. Or microscale 2in1 city sections (like 64x64 London/Paris or Manhattan/Hong Kong). Another direction could be The Orient Express with 12...16 cars/coaches, which should have a displayshelf system made available from Ikea. Those I would try to buy. But probably whatever the next big thing will be it will have something to do with a Disney-owned IP. Which I won't end up getting.

PS (UCS) display sets do seem nice, but to me the total true cost of 1 m2 has reached 10€/month, I suppose for many of you the cost of living space is way higher.

It’s funny, I was thinking that $250 option was absurdly high. Then I realized I purchased both the NES and Discovery Shuttle new and they get pretty close to the price point. I do own the Ewok Village and the first Death Star sets, but I spent months searching for those on eBay to get tremendous deals and maybe paid $250 for the Death Star, but much less for the Ewok village.

I guess the question for me is not what could cost $1000, but what would it be worth spending $1000 on? Seriously, I own a Millennium Falcon and an AT-AT, and I’m quite happy with the regular ones. I arguably may have been willing to pay more for the NES, but never anywhere close to $1000. If there was ever something that really got me excited enough to spend $1000, then the issue becomes where do I put the monstrosity after building it. For that matter, where can I even build it in the first place?

But if I had to guess, a $1000 set would be a life-sized R2-D2.

@alfred_the_buttler said:
"It’s funny, I was thinking that $250 option was absurdly high. Then I realized I purchased both the NES and Discovery Shuttle new and they get pretty close to the price point. I do own the Ewok Village and the first Death Star sets, but I spent months searching for those on eBay to get tremendous deals and maybe paid $250 for the Death Star, but much less for the Ewok village.

I guess the question for me is not what could cost $1000, but what would it be worth spending $1000 on? Seriously, I own a Millennium Falcon and an AT-AT, and I’m quite happy with the regular ones. I arguably may have been willing to pay more for the NES, but never anywhere close to $1000. If there was ever something that really got me excited enough to spend $1000, then the issue becomes where do I put the monstrosity after building it. For that matter, where can I even build it in the first place?

But if I had to guess, a $1000 set would be a life-sized R2-D2. "

A life-sized R2-D2 as a set would probably be priced at more like $10,000 lmao. $1000 wouldnt even come close to covering it. It'd be almost twice as tall as the 2017 UCS Falcon is long, and its, you know, a cylinder, as opposed to a pancake. It'd easily require more than 10x as many pieces.

I voted $1000, not that I'd ever spend that (my personal non-special-occasion limit is probably like £50 :D) but I really want to see what a $1000 set looks like.

Pretty sure we'll see that in the next 5 years if not sooner, judging by the way sets sizes and prices have expolded even within that last couple of years.

Did select the (lowest) 250 mark in the poll, but I think actually I only once bought something in that price range: the Assembly Square modular.
Practically my limit hovers around the 150 - 170 euro point. And even that is rather exceptional. 1 or 2 sets a year.. For things like e.g. modular houses or some bigger system scale Star Wars sets ( system AT-AT; MF ect..)
There are just to many sets I like in the lower price range, which I can obtain via several purchases spread throughout the year... while one single of those behemoth sets would evaporate my Lego budget at once..
Also, I like to combine my sets on display; e.g. several SW sets of 1 movie together; superheroes with modular buildings etc.. and rotate them both in time and place. Something difficult to do with those large sets. Both due to their exaggerated size, as to the fact that most are just one off's thematically or scale wise.
And, last but not least: most of those UCS or ultra detailed sets miss the charm of toys, which Lego to me still is : a toy.

It's not just the adult UCS, Lego Ideas and Creater Expert sets increasing in value beyond $200, but the standard Star Wars, Harry Potter, Ninjago etc. sets seem to be increasing from $50 towards and above $100 for the kids sets making it difficult for parents. Apart from inflation, seems the number of very small detailed surface pieces (to hide the studs and improve the look) is increasing the same sized spacecraft or vehicle from 600 to 800 pieces. So I like the comment about a new measure of price per weight, rather than price per piece when looking at value!

As others have noted the increasing cost can become more palatable if your only interest is in building and then reselling (mainly due to lack of stowage), then you only have to worry about the difference in price.

There were two Lego Ideas space and seaside competitions, using less than 250 pieces the 500+ entrants showed that some fantastic ideas could be achieved which would make great impulse buys. Otherwise, we have the norm of project submitter's going mad on their digital designer to increase the size and detail in their models until they reach the usual submission limit of 3000 pieces!

I don't object to very expensive sets, but if you already have lots of sets, the added value may not be worth it. And in that case I would like it to be easier to buy just the stuff you need. I would like Millenium Falcon and Tumbler upgrade packs. And 'just the rare stuff' for the Colloseum. I will probably get the Titanic, as that looks to include quite a lot of rare stuff.

Well, the prices have to be insanely high because otherwise nobody would ever be able get over the insanely high treshold for "free" GWPs.

It's not easy for me to justify paying such amounts for big licensed sets. One must be a serious collector to do that. Orherwise, as an easy going afol, I stick to sets that reminds of the past, like 31120: Medieval Castle.

I remember thinking that I would never buy another set as large as 10188 Death Star when I got it, but that was worth it as it was the ultimate Star Wars set. On the other hand, I still feel queasy about buying 75978 Diagon Alley, which was so dreadfully, unnecessarily large. For the same price as the Death Star you should get at least the Leaky Cauldron and Gringotts as well, or something vibrant and feature packed like Ninjago City. A complete package. As a Harry Potter fan, I couldn't miss out on that set, but I kind of wish I had, because I don't think I got quite enough bang for that kind of buck.

@J0rgen said:
"I remember thinking that I would never buy another set as large as 10188 Death Star when I got it, but that was worth it as it was the ultimate Star Wars set. On the other hand, I still feel queasy about buying 75978 Diagon Alley, which was so dreadfully, unnecessarily large. For the same price as the Death Star you should get at least the Leaky Cauldron and Gringotts as well, or something vibrant and feature packed like Ninjago City. A complete package. As a Harry Potter fan, I couldn't miss out on that set, but I kind of wish I had, because I don't think I got quite enough bang for that kind of buck."

I'm actually still quite surprised about the price of the large Hogwarts Castle and Diagon Alley. You know if they'd been equally large Star Wars sets, they would have easily cost 500-600. Now of course 400 is still a lot for those HP sets compared to say Modular Buildings, but at least it's not completely outrageous.

While I respect that many FOLs cannot or will not spend massive amounts of money on a single set, and count myself lucky to be living in Norway - although prices are higher than elsewhere the average wages and income means that LEGO is still relatively cheap here - I think that the most important factor for me in deciding whether sets are "worth it" varies greatly from set to set.

Size and subsequently storage is also a restriction (where would you put the 75252, for example?), but as a few others have mentioned above, one of the strengths of LEGO as a hobby is the ability to recoup (parts of) your investment at a later date should you so choose.

Still, having be fascinated by the AT-ATs since seeing ESB as a kid I am leaning towards purchasing the 75313 through a combination of my own money, VIP points and Christmas gifts from my family once it becomes available. Getting the lightsaber GWP and perhaps selling it on later could also recoup some of the outlay.

However, I would rather have a play-scale version of the Republic Gunship (akin to 75021 or 7676) than the 75309 if possible as my attachment to the PT/CW is much different. And next year's rumoured UCS Luke's Landspeeder holds almost no interest to me, although it clearly belongs to the OT.

Finally, while I too am concerned with the rampant frequency of sets in price categories that was quite rare only a few years ago (€250+) I think it is prudent to remember that LEGO has always been an expensive hobby, and that there are quite a lot of examples from years gone by of cheaper sets that were still 'too expensive' given their value. Such problems become much more apparent with very expensive sets, but - relatively speaking - sets in the €20 to €100 range can, and are, just as easily (and maybe even as often?) overpriced.

@DBMartin said:
" @J0rgen said:
"I remember thinking that I would never buy another set as large as 10188 Death Star when I got it, but that was worth it as it was the ultimate Star Wars set. On the other hand, I still feel queasy about buying 75978 Diagon Alley, which was so dreadfully, unnecessarily large. For the same price as the Death Star you should get at least the Leaky Cauldron and Gringotts as well, or something vibrant and feature packed like Ninjago City. A complete package. As a Harry Potter fan, I couldn't miss out on that set, but I kind of wish I had, because I don't think I got quite enough bang for that kind of buck."

I'm actually still quite surprised about the price of the large Hogwarts Castle and Diagon Alley. You know if they'd been equally large Star Wars sets, they would have easily cost 500-600. Now of course 400 is still a lot for those HP sets compared to say Modular Buildings, but at least it's not completely outrageous."

It is outrageous in my book. If they'd done it in the style of the 2011 Diagon Alley, we could have had the whole thing for 250$. 75978 might have a lot of pieces, but the end result doesn't have the same wow factor as my 10118. The microscale castle, on the other hand, is more like the Death Star. A one-off, ultimate Harry Potter set (at least for people who like microscale).

As long as Lego sets hold and can increase in value, then it helps the purchasing decision knowing you can sell it down the line and get your money back or make money even if it is opened and built.

But of course there is going to be a limit for the majority where the price and space becomes prohibitive and we have probably reached that limit already for many with the $800 sets.

I have no problem with Lego releasing more expensive sets as they want to expand their range and get more adults that aren't AFOLs yet into the hobby. You don't have to buy everything and having options is a good thing. Looking at this year's D2C list, I only want a small fraction of those. As long as they are still making good sets at all price range, then they are still being inclusive.

@J0rgen said:
" @DBMartin said:
" @J0rgen said:
"I remember thinking that I would never buy another set as large as 10188 Death Star when I got it, but that was worth it as it was the ultimate Star Wars set. On the other hand, I still feel queasy about buying 75978 Diagon Alley, which was so dreadfully, unnecessarily large. For the same price as the Death Star you should get at least the Leaky Cauldron and Gringotts as well, or something vibrant and feature packed like Ninjago City. A complete package. As a Harry Potter fan, I couldn't miss out on that set, but I kind of wish I had, because I don't think I got quite enough bang for that kind of buck."

I'm actually still quite surprised about the price of the large Hogwarts Castle and Diagon Alley. You know if they'd been equally large Star Wars sets, they would have easily cost 500-600. Now of course 400 is still a lot for those HP sets compared to say Modular Buildings, but at least it's not completely outrageous."

It is outrageous in my book. If they'd done it in the style of the 2011 Diagon Alley, we could have had the whole thing for 250$. 75978 might have a lot of pieces, but the end result doesn't have the same wow factor as my 10118. The microscale castle, on the other hand, is more like the Death Star. A one-off, ultimate Harry Potter set (at least for people who like microscale)."

Let's agree to disagree then. While I prefer the Hogwarts Castle too, I don't think Diagon Alley is far behind. And I have a close friend who works at a LEGO store and he tells me that having Diagon Alley as a built set in the store has definitely wowed a lot of people and persuaded quite a few of them to buy the set. They all say it's expensive, but compared with a lot of other large LEGO sets, they certainly do see the value of it.

Anything over $40 is a significant purchase. Only twice have I ever paid more than $60 for a set, and both of those were extraordinary. The $80 7644 was a "substitute grail" for the long-since-unreachable Deep Freeze Defender (Modular space ship with escape/command pods and deployable vehicle), and the other was the $120 92176 to celebrate a major career advancement, and I'd wanted the Saturn V since 21309 but couldn't justify the cost. So no matter what, I do not think I could justify more than $150 for a given set, even in the most favorable of circumstances. (It would take a major devaluation of the dollar for that to happen.)

These comments have shown me that I'm not alone in sticking to affordable sets.

My most expensive set is 75288, which was $200 CAD. It definitely took a long time to decide whether or not it was worth spending that much for it, but in the end I think it was worth it.

So I have the financial capacity to buy a $999 Lego set? Yes

Do I have the to display such a set? I could make the room

What would the set be? I have no idea what would trigger me to spend that kind of money, and won't know until I see it

(full disclosure -- I have not/will not purchase the UCS Millenium Falcon or AT-AT, but I have purchased the Star Destroyer)

$200 is my rough limit, and I prefer to use VIP points to off-set even that. I did buy 75290, Mos Eisley, but only after I had slowly accumulated $150 worth of points through regular purchasing. I also picked up Pirates of Barracuda Bay, but deliberately waited for a double-points day to get as much “cash back” as possible.
I don’t know if anyone else is the same, but having prohibitively expensive versions of iconic models is preventing me from buying ANY. For example, the Millenium Falcon: I can’t afford 75192, but I also can’t bring myself to buy 75257 (which looks great) knowing that there’s a superior version in existence. Honestly broke my heart when the new AT-AT was first rumored...
Just my thoughts...!

I keep hoping for a new Millennium Falcon with ALL of its interior PLUS the escape pod...not that I can afford it.

The only phrase that comes to mind after reading the article is this:

“If you build it they will come”

I have bought almost the entire UCS collection but started in 2011, which meant I had to buy a lot of the sets via eBay, in unopened boxes at much higher than initial prices. I’ve paid €1800 for a 10179 Millenium Falcon, €1000 for a 10143 Death Star II, etc. So anything I could buy after that straight from Lego I’ve paid less than that for.
To me it all depends on the set though. I’ve not yet bought a 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer as I already have a (secondhand)10030 Imperial Star Destroyer I paid €600 for in prebuilt condition. Nor did I get the 10227 B-Wing Starfighter (yet). But I did get the 75192 Millenium Falcon despite already having the 10179 Millenium Falcon, and also got the 75195 Death Star despite already having the 10188 Death Star.

So what I’m trying to say is that as long as there’s value in it for me and I can afford it, I will buy the set.

And as long as Lego keep making sets that fall in lower price categories for kids to get as gifts and grow up playing with Lego I have no problem with the prices for premium, well thought out designs being higher. If that would mean that more Lego ideas would be approved each round I’d even sign up for that.

My limit is somewhere around $250 for a new set, having purchased the Discovery Space Shuttle and '66 Batcave sets at retail. But I welcome the more expensive sets, as they eventually show up at Savers for a fraction of the original price. My buying strategy is to let people with more money buy the sets and then pick them up once they get rid of them.

No spending limit here for the Lego sets themselves - assuming fair value - but a limit on the required real estate. Just as for many other commenters, this stuff consumes valuable floor space at home.

my most expensive was hogwarts castle, and that felt a lil overpriced considering it's not my favourite. 2nd was disney castle and it felt more fair in price. I'm interested in the Titanic, so my limit may be above 500. really depends on how the model looks and if the price seems good, there aren't a lot of 300+ sets that both look good enough and with a good price. Like the new AT-AT, it looks great but hard to imagine it being worth more than 500. The colosseum looks like a 300 € set on pictures.

It would be hard for me to imagine enough people being willing to pay $1000 for a Death Star 2 type model. I think a Death Star 1 three-boot or even an updated SSD more likely to fetch that price point.

I love Lego and at one point I would sell a kidney to get sets. But ohh my gosh the number of sets priced over $300 is out of control. The number of seat priced over $500 is is way out of control. I think Lego got us, pricing the UCS MF at $800 and the success, opened the door for Lego to use that price point. In this day and age, I need my kidney to pay for gas and not a months worth of grocery on a Lego set. I hope Lego comes back down to the ground and realize there fans can not afford $500-800 sets.

@ambr:
Remember, there’s been a lot of flak against LSW for how the OT sets have seen a significant size reduction, and that came with a corresponding price reduction. It’s not really fair to judge the entire LSW line by how expensive the UCS portion has gotten. Those sets were never really targeted at kids. Stuff like the ISD and Death Star were never designed with playability in mind, and most young kids would struggle to pick them up unassisted.

@8lackmagic:
I don’t know that it helps, but I got the impression that the Titanic has more than three segments. I’ve seen more interior shots than could be managed with only two divisions. I’d guess it’s more like 6-8, with one segment per smokestack, and one or two segments each for the bow and stern.

As far as the box goes, there’s a practical limit to how big those can get. Too big, and people won’t be able to fit them in many vehicles, or the box will collapse when picked up because there’s no back-pressure from the parts inside. If you pack it as full as it can get, then yes, a constructed model that takes up more space just isn’t going to be able to fit without disassembly.

And as for the pace of releases, they don’t seem to be having trouble moving all those sets based on my observations at the local LEGO Store. Just because you, as an individual, can’t keep up doesn’t mean that holds true for everyone. There are also AFOLs who haven’t really bought many of these big sets because none of them catered to their interests, which can only be corrected with variety, which can only be achieved with volume of new high-end releases. They’ve also been able to attract a lot of non-AFOLs, which sub-$100 hadn’t really managed to pull off before. I have yet to see a single $300+ set that has been universally panned by the AFOL community. Even Attack on Hoth has its fans, despite what @Huw might think.

@Rotbart:
AFOLs come in a wide spectrum. I know some who refuse to buy New parts, while I steer clear of Used. I’ve seen people complain about Bricklink prices being too high when the parts are $0.10/pc. Several members of my LUG hit bargain bins, buy off Craigslist/eBay, and resell whatever they don’t want for a profit. One person here claimed to not even pay attention to price. Others said just this one AT-AT set would exceed their annual LEGO budget. So, some readers were priced out long ago, and others don’t have an issue with how the 18+ line is shaping up.

The idea of LEGO sets above 300EUR makes me rather uncomfortable. While as an AFOL, I appreciate that these amazing sets exist (and are often more affordable than custom kits), I do hope that TLG continue to focus on kids and the play experience. I do believe that play experience has had a beneficial impact on me personally, aside from being an AFOL, so as long as this remains as TLG's core product I can stomach these high prices.

In the last decade or so, though, I feel like LEGO is seen more and more as a collectible rather than a toy, as exemplified by some of the absurd aftermarket prices and TLG's marketing towards adults. With three $800 sets in the last 5 (?) years, I am somewhat apprehensive.

Expensive is a relative term. I remember refusing to pay £0.78 for a part on Bricklink last year. I needed it but i felt it was too much for that part. I will then spend £100 at lego.com because I think IF you include the points, the free postage, the GWP and a certain unamed cash back bonus its probably better than me ebaying the GWP and amazoning the set(s) there for not too expensive. It also relative to wealth. I remember David Beckham going on a talk show saying he ordered the Taj Mahal for something to do while away from his family and left it at the hotel. For him an £800 pair of jeans may seem reasonable.

I would like many past, present and future expensive sets, I keep looking for the Tower of Orthanc, but ultimately buying £200 of smaller sets sometimes wins over one large one. I do own the UCS falcon but mostly as I saw it 20% off one May the forth (2 left in stock) and justified it by "I was going to buy it so I might as well get it at that price as it may never be that low again". It took my about 20 mins to press the button. The AT-AT looks great, I can't justify £750 but part of me is annoyed the UK are paying a premium. Mind you I don't think I would have bought it at £650. I cant think of much I would be interested above £300. Again I have the Large Technic cars but I only bought when circa £100 off. I also think the physical foot print / Display area is a factor. Some are too big, even if they were cheaper.

Wasn't the Robotics Invention Set the most expensive one at the turn of the millenium.
Speaking of which, the UCS MilF is still on my wish list, just because of the price. It's easier to spend a hundred euros ten times, than to spend 700 at once.

I'm mainly a technic guy, I'm fine with a 300€ set if the cost isn't pumped up with Control+ or licenses, provided it has a good amount of parts and not 200 round bricks for gravel or 2000 pins for 4000 total parts, but I know that with technic is a lost battle to get the right price per part with all those pins.
On system side I usually get sets for parts, I go for creator 3in1 because they have a lot of nice parts for a good price, getting the same parts may cost more on pick a brick or bricks & pieces.
Creator sets are the right ones in my opinion, not expensive and a lot of value, I just miss the little ones on the 5€ range.

@Rotbart said:
"Premium Decoy Pricing at it's best. ;-)

"Oh, Daddy, look at this huge AT-AT!"
"Ahm... ok... kid, how about this 160$-version 75288 instead?""

This worked on me 100% :D

Within a day or so of the Brickset mega AT-AT article coming out I snapped up a 30% discounted 'normal' sized AT-AT from Amazon.

I can understand how Lego prices its sets but the Falcon, ISD from 2017 and AT-AT can surely be cheaper. 10 cents per piece is not an exact metric but with the amount of 1x1 plates and technic pins in use in all 3 of these models there surely does not need to be such an excess rate, especially when Modular houses contain one of the most expensive parts: baseplates, which are absent in all Star Wars sets.

The Falcon might have an okay price, it's not that far off from 800. But the ISD is a rip-off with 4800 pieces, even if they are 8x16 plates, it does not look so much bigger that it couldn't fit a 550€ box like the old UCS Falcon. Same with the AT-AT, countless 1x1 plates and technic pins, not even that many huge parts. With 6200 pieces I always imagined a 650€ price point. At least I have the fortune of living in the one country where this discount could be reached but to have to wait for a discount to get the bare minimum of an acceptable price...

These 3 UCS sets are way too expensively priced, especially since there are no outlandish new moulds necessary to make them reality. I really expected the AT-AT to need a premium due to new click hinge joints but with only one new type of technic gear it feels especially silly to have waited so long and pay so much for what is essentially something anyone could have built years ago. Okay, maybe not years since the insides still use rather new technic parts, less than 5 years old, but still: none of the usual arguments for higher prices really apply to the degree that justifies a 250€ mark up. Like new molds (only 1), new prints (0), exclusive minifig parts (1 torso and 2 heads, but the heads will surely turn up elsewhere shortly and the torso is merely a design variant of something we got already), or special prints like arms, legs or boots (Veers boots are the most common boot legs piece Lego produces and not even worth its 2€ on B&P anymore).

I don't see myself buying anymore UCS Star Wars sets if the good stuff all goes the way of 33% markup or 800€. I see a couple designs that could top out at 600 and not be silly like the Venator and Lucrehulk but Lego doesn't want to do the Prequels until I am fatter and uglier than I already am, anyway. Maybe we will get a 1000€ Death Star that combines display piece and playset in 2023, but even then you can get that model on Rebrickable for a bit more than 800€. A Lego set being the exact same price as a MOC people have to buy instructions for and buy the pieces from multiple vendors with 12times shipping costs is absurd but apparently our grotesque reality.

Great discussions.

I selected that I would pay any amount, because I would if it’s the right piece. Not the Death Star II. Not unless it opened up to reveal some interiors and junk and was really cool. Still…all that grey…I say that knowing I’m getting ready to buy the AT-AT. All that GREY…

Personally I’d love to see some badass Ninjago City sets getting near a thousand bucks. Can you imagine the color palettes?? The neon? A skyscraper or two?

And oh my…the MINIFIGURES….oooooooohhhh….

Let's be real: we will get a $1000 modular skyscraper one day, it will be amazingly awesome, and all of you will take out a new line of credit to get it. Lego knows damn well they have to do it.

@lemish34:
Groucho Marx would have some thoughts on that matter. He told one of his brothers (I think Zeppo?) for years to save his money instead of blowing it all partying, and his brother never listened. Then Groucho lost all his savings during the stock market crash that preceded the Great Depression.

It's said that you've priced your items right when people complain about them but buy it anyway.

I think LEGO reached that point a few years ago for many and are turning off a large number of fans with their high prices and ridiculous GWP thresholds.

@AustinPowers said:
" @namekuji said:
"I’ve entered a dark age as a result of cost, space and dramatic decline in plastic quality. No more lego for me. Even beginning the great sell off. "
Similar situation here.
I've been accused of negative comments quite frequently, and I have taken some time to think about that. It's true, my feelings towards LEGO have turned increasingly negative over the past year or two, and for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you have to live in Germany and know the special situation TLG has put itself into over here to understand, but suffice it to say, I too am entering a second dark age at the moment.
Insane prices are just one of the factors, but quite an important one.
Over the past few weeks I have been re-investigating my other hobbies from the past and I must say it has been very satisfying. And since I get much more enjoyment out of that now than out of LEGO, I have come to about the same decision as @namekuji .
I will still visit Brickset regularly just to keep up to date with current news and developments, but overall I intend to spend far less time here than I did in the past.
People who always got riled by comments will be rejoicing to hear that of course, but I am sure they will find other subjects to get worked up about ;-)

As for pricing, I chose 500 in the survey, but actually I have never paid more than 250 Euro for any set yet, and thinking about it a little longer I think I absolutely should have selected 250 instead of 500."

I agree with all of the above. It’s so refreshing to just let it go and explore other things. The great sell off is the way to go. Keep the memorable ones though, for the rest, it’s time to go to new homes.

I’ll bet the Lego situation in Germany is no worse than it is in New Zealand.

@PurpleDave said:
" @deathmoth:
Any comparable models of the two Death Stars should result in DS2 costing more than DS1. The latter is just a basic sphere with a dent in the side. The former has a very complex, half-constructed side that should actually use more parts in spite of being smaller and “less” constructed."

Given recent precedents, I wouldn’t imagine a current Death Star 1 model without some cleverly-concealed interior vignettes, whether or not featuring minifigs (e.g., 71395 Mario Question Mark…Similar concept on a larger scale, perhaps). But given the draw of exclusive figs associated with larger builds, I’m imagining a display-focused version of 10188 Death Star…Larger, fully skinned, less vignettes/play features/figures but still enough to be a selling point without taking away from the enclosed model’s displayability.

On the question of much is too much for a Lego set I can only say - it depends, which I know is a bit of a cop out.

Thinking about it I realised the most expensive set I've ever bought for myself was 21322 for £180. Pirates was the theme I grew up with and that set was the perfect tribute so even at that price I think it was great value. It could have cost twice as much and I would have happily still bought it.

The most expensive set I own is 71043 which I got for my 30th birthday. At £350 I thought that was going to be the most extravagant Lego set I would ever own. An over the top, one off. And then along came the Titanic. It is unique - I've never seen a set like it before and doubt I will for a long time to come. For this reason, although it is expensive, to me it is worth ever penny of the £570 price tag.

On the other hand I do think think the cost of the UCS Star Wars sets in particular is too high. I was trying to work out why I felt that way and I think it comes down to these sets in general not being unique enough. For example, there have been a handful of other AT-ATs released over the years and there is in fact currently another one on sale at the moment. Yes, 75313 is impressive but is it £610 more impressive than 75288? Not for me it's not.

@Bulletbob said:
" @fulcrumbop said:
"Death Star 75159 was my limit. But that would have been out of the question, as would have the Roller Coaster, and several in the $200 - $250 range, without the use of VIP points.

I'm thinking that a Barad-dur, a UCS Darth Vader's castle, or a DC Hall of Justice might convince me otherwise."

A $500 Barad-dur would be a sight to behold!"

I swore to myself 75192 would be the only super-expensive set I'd buy, ever... but anything "UCS" from the Lord of the Rings would probably make me break that oath easily. That, and a UCS BTTF DeLorean. o_O

To my mind, sets like the UCS Falcon, the new AT-AT and the Titanic have a similar function to the exotic cars produced by otherwise 'normal' manufacturers - things like the Audi R8. They are 'Halo' models designed to attract attention and, as others have said, entice customers to buy items from the more affordable end of the range.

At the same time, they generate valuable publicity. If a new X-Wing is released at about £50, it'll get a mention, and maybe a review, on fan sites like Brickset, but that's that.

However, release a set that's the biggest / longest / heaviest / most parts or somesuch, and it'll get picked up by more mainstream media. And no publicity's bad publicity.

As for me, the new UCS Falcon was a day one purchase, less than eight months after I'd paid an eye-watering sum for a MISB 10179.

My heart tells me I want both the Titanic and the AT-AT at the same time that my head (and my wife!) is telling me that there's nowhere in the house to display it.

There will always be bigger, more expensive sets, but I can see that the market for them will slowly shrink to the point where they become almost a novelty.

Keep in mind that $270 in 2002 is worth $415 today.

Also, the aftermarket sees a lot of money changing hands, indicating a preparedness among collectors to shell out big for sets they want. Lego gets in on that pie by creating luxury-tier sets for those collectors to spend on.

I love Star Wars and i am trying to buy only Lego SW UCS sets but i find that i get pulled and pushed by the amazing ranges that Lego keep bringing out like the Home Alone House, Stranger things and the wonderful space range like Saturn V and ISS. I grab these sets and then notice i cant buy this years UCS set, i am falling so far behind it feels impossible to catch up. I think about the sets i want and they feel like they are becoming pipe dreams as Lego continue to pump large scale expensive sets in to the market and not one a year but 5 plus sets a year! I have considered selling my Lego mini fig collections so that i can afford to grab sets before they retire.

Sorry, but for me anything above 99 euro is still a problem. And even below that I don't often go above 40. At this point I don't really want or care about any of those supersized sets. They're not for me or anyone without large swaths of disposable income.

Everything beyond 200€ for a (Lego) set is ludicrous. I won't go over that amount no matter what. Even that is debatable, but let's draw the line somewhere. And that is very rarely reached in my case. Just my 2cs.

Not that I could persuade my self to spend such an amount, but $10,000
seems like it could be possible?

What would the set be?
It would have to be something like a Minifigure scale Castle of 100,000-200,000 parts.
Subjects would have to be a Minifigure Scale Minas Tirith. Or maybe minifigure scale Hogwarts Castle.
Perhaps there are two or three real world Castles that could be made as Architectural sets.
The Forbidden City, Schonbrunn Palace, Windsor Castle, Edinburgh Castle or maybe the Disney Castle seems more likely?

A Remote control Technic Mechanically "real" Car that a child could ride in. Either based on a new Bugatti, Ferrarri or Maclaren type supercar?

Delivery of a set like this would probably have to be in several packages. Probably 10-20 deliveries unless you pay a premium to have it delivered in one go.

The next question is who would buy such a set. Well anyone who can really, but would probably be limited to the Millionaire fan of Lego. China seems like the place that might buy more of these?

for me it's not on absolutely prices, it much depends on what I get in return.

my impression until lately was I could score a good price/fun ratio with adult sets that were to be found on discount sooner or later somewhere. that was fun and relatively affordable. Lego set up a reasonable list price, the market was going to develop to a limit, and I could pull the trigger. fine. hobbies may cost money.

now, lego often creates great sets, but put a list price tag on it that feels somewhat ridiculous, to compensate the coming battle of discounts ... with the effect the the price I can score after discounts actually is higher than before (think of flagship technic sets, ...).
even worse, Lego also takes this new list price policy of preventive compensation and applies it to their exclusives as well, to match free market sets in "value" ... but these sets never go on a real discount, making them painfully expensive, no matter if there are VIP points or GWPs, the price just freezes in a region too high for me feeling comfortable with it to "just buy it and be happy with a new build".

I'm currently privileged enough I could afford this madness if I really wanted to (I definitely would feel the blow on my bank account though). it's just such prices never feel right anymore since lately.

If you think they are expensive, try and get them here in Australia! The AT-AT is going to be $1300! I understand exchange rates but thats still a $250 premium. As a die hard star wars fan, I can justify the likes of the falcon, however I have to say i was disappointed with the final product. My opinion is it could have been scaled down some to detail the interior more. Looks like the AT-AT does not suffer this though.

Personally i don't mind the odd 1k+ set, if they are spread out. The sheer volume of sets each year is just becoming way too much. I have been a huge technic collector for years and this year I bought 1 set, and I cannot justify over $300 for a technic set.

Side note, If they finally do a fully skinned 10,000 piece Death Star 1 UCS, I do not care what the price is.

I've occasionally bought (or been asked to choose as a special occasion gift) a set in the £100 - £130 ballpark. But in these days I’m more likely to pick sets in the £10 - £30 range, because it's not just about the price of the set, it's also finding the time to sit down and build it, as well as display space.

A few years back I bought £40 - 60 sets pretty often, but frankly, you just don't get the kind of bargains you used to back in the days of Tesco Direct and their 3 for 2 sale. When Tesco Direct left the playing field, there was a noticeable dearth of UK bargains because other big retailers like Argos and Amazon were not fighting to undercut Tesco and each other to the same degree.

The other big factor is the sheer number of big, ambitious, sets with great display appeal. I don’t buy one sixth of the sets I’m tempted by these days, and that’s including Ideas sets of £60, £70 and up, to say nothing of the huge number of £100+ sets I would love. I debated for ages whether to get the Tree House and in the end let it pass me by. I picked up Barracuda Bay in the spring but have yet to find the time to build it.

And I really don’t think I can let the Haunted House go past me; it’s too much the kind of set I’ve been dreaming about for years, but at just under £210 it really is at the absolute ceiling of what I feel I can justify - and I’m speaking as someone who waited years to get a Nintendo Switch, and only pulled the trigger recently thanks to a £100 prepaid card that our local government gave to every adult to help the economy.

It’s really telling to me that I didn’t seriously consider just buying a big Lego set with the money - I find it easier to make buying decisions if I’m not choosing between a dozen different options!

You know, if you’re wondering when the first set running $10k USD or more will land, you’re technically looking at it. $799.99 for the vehicle, and $239.88 to fully stock it with Snowtroopers comes to $1,039.87 before tax.

For personal spending, I'd not even go beyond EUR 100 (for special occasions), and not beyond EUR 50 (for normal occasions). It's just because Lego is only part of the many other entertainments that me and my family enjoys. Plus to think about the place to display them afterwards is never easy.

However I see that most people here are already kind of addicted (especially with the 'more is never enough' mindset), making a survey to addicted fans? Hmm... I sense that no matter what Lego produces, people will just continue to buy it.

I was once very much into the buying frenzy (but realized that I only enjoy the buying moment plus partially the building moment, which probably lasted only for a few hours). And I don't even have enough space in the house to display it properly, and I don't mean by cramping all the sets together like many you do (haha admit it). If they are separated for MOC which I prefers, this would normally means time and it is a luxury in my case. So yeah, nice survey, but no thanks for large and expensive sets.

250 USD is currently my maximum I would pay for a LEGO Set.
I even think they will remake "10212: Imperial Shuttle", "75060: Slave I", "10240: Red Five X-wing Starfighter" or any other Wing Figher or "10174: Imperial AT-ST"

@PurpleDave said:
"You know, if you’re wondering when the first set running $10k USD or more will land, you’re technically looking at it. $799.99 for the vehicle, and $239.88 to fully stock it with Snowtroopers comes to $1,039.87 before tax."

That would be $1k not $10k? Or maybe you meant $1000 in the first place.

I guess not being a Star Wars fan means I'm not being targeted by very many of the largest sets. I'd enjoy building the Colosseum and Titanic but have no desire to keep or display them.

I don't expect every adult targeted set to appeal to my interests or to be able to afford every set that I like the look of. Space is a big problem, both for display and storage of sets that I don't want to keep on display but do want to keep.

I do hope they keep making sets like the botanical ones which are detailed but not huge.

There isn’t really a limit for me, assuming it’s good value and something I like.

If I had somewhere reasonable to display the falcon I’d probably buy it. Still might. I can’t really imagine a set bigger and better than that, though.

Price is a factor for me, but more so is value.
And by ‘value’ I personally consider how much time I will spend with a set.
Assembly square was not cheap in $ terms, but I spent sooo long building, photographing and admiring that set. Great pleasure and memories. And now it’s integral to my town. Great value for me.

Corner diner is not interesting to me. I’d be wasting my time and $. For me, no value in it.

If you’re the kind of person that gets fun out of smashing together a set then stashing it in the cupboard forever, good for you. But I can see how your hobby would get expensive very quickly.

There are a lot of sets I would love to have but can't justify the price, but at the same time I would hesitate to put a hard price limit if I wanted a set enough. North of £200 it would have to be something special, but it can happen.

What matters more to me is quality, and by that I basically mean stickers. I don't think a set over £100 can justify having stickers in, CERTAINLY not one of £250 or more. It's a deal breaker for me.

I just bought new 70823 and 70824 for 28 PLN (6 EUR) each. Not too steep, I presume.

@Paperdaisy:
Um...yeah, the $10k comes from the price of a dozen UCS AT-ATs, which is the current official count for Blizzard Force (the group that attacked Hoth). $1k is from this article, and is what I meant to type.

@stratiformus:
I have a lot more cupboard space than I have use for, so I actually do have several sets stashed in the unused ones. Bag-End and Mini Bag-End are amongst the sets that are so “displayed”, because it amuses me.

Ridiculous pricing on the new sets, no value for money - just blatant abuse of the faithful community !! LEGO will keep rising these costs disproportionately to the model and other themes as long as the demand is seen - once a set bombs, they will hold back - just compare the inflation of prices through the last 20 years on Star Wars to other themes...... My god, size apart, the at at is bland and the interior is not all that - hard pressed justify 400£ and don't mention the fact the parts are all grey. Look at the Ninjago set that won the best set of the last 20+ years and then argue that the diversity of parts, figures etc at less than 40% of the at at cost doesn't show where the price levels should be !!!

The sheep need a shepherd to make a stand and stop this constant escalation of pricing - then it will stop alienating fans

I don't necessarily have an upper limit on what I am willing to spend. I have Barracuda Bay, the Treehouse and the Space Shuttle on my wanted list, but haven't bought them because I can think of other sets that I would prefer to spend the $250-$300 on. Having said that, if Lego made a $500+ Iron Man or Hulkbuster I would buy it.
If they made a $1000+ minifig-scale Planet Express Ship, well, Shut Up and Take My Money.

The most I ever spent on a single set was € 325 aftermarket for a new 41999.
Then the UCS Millennium Falcon is still to be had (hopefully), and I'd give a grand for a MISB 7750. That's my ultimate set.
Then there is the huge Cavegod MOC of a Sandcrawler ( https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-13289/AllOutBrick/cavegod-ucs-sandcrawler/ details) that I would gladly save all the pieces for.
But the really high prices and emphasis on display only, does take away a lot of the fun for me.

I’m lucky to (generally) be able to afford the larger £££ sets, but I want Lego to widen their thinking on what can be modelled at that size. Love Star Wars but there must be more things that will sell and give Lego the confidence to create these mammoth sets.

I know it’s a bit of mantra, but a minifig scale castle at +7500 parts?……. Sign me up

If it was motorized I’d consider buying it. But without motors it’s just $399 worth of grey Legos with a $300 Star Wars tax added on.

Anything over $100 I think about it, over and around $200 I think twice, over and around $350 I just admire the photos.

My son and I don't really have a set limit. We would have to see what was available.
We bought the Millennium Falcon (75191) at $500.00 so if something caught our eye
that was more, we would probably buy it.
That being said we also sell some sets used after we have enjoyed them for awhile.
We recently sold 71137, Minecraft The Mountain Cave used for $800, we also buy multiple
sets we think will go up and hold them for usually 3 years or so.
It supports our habit and then some. And it is not really as time consuming as you would think.
And it has served us very well.
We just think of it as our bank account/savings. We also buy many of the sets on sale at amazon,
or at stores like walmart when the old sets get drastically reduced to clearance to make way for the new ones.
And it is very rewarding and fun doing this with my son.
Cheers.

I have never spent more than a €100 on a lego set. I wait for the sale, and if it doesn't happen I simply skip the set. Even a €100 is a lot of money for a toy, let's be real.

Time for me to find a new hobby. Paying all these licensing fees is what drives it up. I now stay clear of anything Disney owned. City, Creator Expert suits me fine. Let the scalpers have the expensive sets, they’ll soon realize no one is buying.

The next UCS will be the Rasor Crest in 2022, it is nice and not too enormus, so the price will not go to crazy i hope.

I think that the issue doesn't just lie in big expensive sets but also small and regular priced sets...
A few years ago, I could buy a £70 LEGO X-Wing and it would be the perfect size and fairly priced considering it's a licenced theme (Star Wars). But now, we have similar priced sets (from Star Wars) but are much much smaller in scale and piece count. It's like LEGO have made their products either for 8 year olds, or 18+ year olds. There's no middle ground, ind it's kind of driving me nuts. Either fork out a ton of money for sets I want, or not get anything, since I'm not interested in mid to small scale sets of an X-Wing for example...
But to talk about UCS sets, I think (and hope) they remake the Super Star Destroyer from Empire Strikes Back, that's one set I'd love to own, but I'm not willing to spend like £1.5k on in the after-market as it's long retired by now.
But a Death Star or Death Star II would be an ideal £1k set for LEGO to make. It needs to be very big, very detailed, and very high piece count, like 20,000 or something like that.
I personally prefer the look of the old Death Star II set as opposed to the one from a few years back that's more a play-set as it has re-imagined rooms inside it.

I think the key to bigger sets and higher prices is family or group building. I could see a grand parent, parent and kid sitting down to a big set. Maybe a group of friends. Otherwise of the sets become too big and repetitive, it's too much build slog, not enough fun......

I can't see sets successfully growing much bigger otherwise. By the time you have put in the ten thousandth brick another dark age is in the offing.....

Back in May, I bought the most expensive Lego set ever for myself - the Imperial Star Destroyer. I’ve thought it was so cool and super detailed and I wanted it for awhile. Then an opportunity to buy it came up and I purchased it over the May the 4th promo this year. $700 is a ton of money and I sometimes think that I could’ve used it for more important things, but it is a sweet model, but huge. Since I’ve been off at college, I haven’t been able to appreciate it much, but I still have to find a good spot to display it because it is soooo huge. I should feel satisfied with what I have now, but after the new Star Wars summer wave, boy it seems like I could spend another $500 bucks. And then next years new sets, and so on and so on. There’s got to be a balance and when Lego releases many cool new sets often it makes it difficult to be content and have self-control over my money.

I personally have no interest in the large Star Wars sets; consequently the Modular buildings are the most expensive sets I buy, followed by the large Creator type vehicles. I always thing to how far things have come since I was young; Christmas 1981 (40 years ago!) and I was desperate for the 12v Intercity train, (7740) complete with transformer (which didn't even come with a plug!) although I knew this was a huge set and expensive too - I recall it was around £40 which made it about the most expensive and biggest set available at the time (always tested by the size of the 'LEGO' logo on the box in the old days) although using an inflation calculator this is only around £150 in todays money. Aside from that, I thought this set was the most realistic thing at the time although it is clearly lacking by todays standards - realistic details = more parts = more cost; greater details appeal to AFOL buyers also as adults are less likely to use their imagination to make up for shortfalls in the actual model. However, apart from official sets, I have spent more on MOC's, both my own and historic F1 cars on Rebrickable which can cost up to £400 each to construct, so I probably would spend more on an official set if the theme was right, my partner allowed it, and we had the space...

I’ve spent a lot more spread out into various boxes so them putting more Lego in the same box is frankly a convenience for me, if I like the elements.

I feel that all this growth is missing the point of Lego, which is that you can make it yourself. The instructions are all online, and for most of us our collections are big enough to allow us to build most things. Or even better, make your own designs, which is what the point of Lego is, rather than a 3D jigsaw puzzle.
What annoys me the most is the price per price being extremely high in licences sets, so I tend to buy proprietary Lego sets, where the price is kept at more reasonable levels ( and compared to historic sets, way cheaper).
As previous members have said, there is more pleasure to be had from small clever sets and actually, what you build and design yourself!

The most I have spent is $350 or so, and I won't go higher on principle. I'd love the UCS Falcon and now the AT-AT, and while I CAN afford it, I won't buy them.