Great work, thanks for interesting read.

Data is awesome.

What's interesting to me, is that it seems my purchasing habits do not reflect the majority of brickset readers and my buying habits never (and never have) include a first day, week or even month purchase.

I own one of those sets, and it's pretty low down, and the only other two I seriously want are also quite far down.

I don't mind the top three, but I'm ambivalent to meh, as to whether I'll get them or not.

@besch64 said:
"On the flip side, I'm surprised to see The Mighty Bowser so low. I haven't built it yet, but when it was announced I was immediately blown away by the engineering of the puppet functions, as well as the accuracy to the character. Biases aside, I honestly think it's probably the most impressive at-a-glance Lego set I've ever seen. That combined with the fact that Bowser is probably one of the most recognizable "cartoon" characters in the world makes his low placement a big surprise to me. It's not even expensive relative to its piece count, size, or to other comparable licensed model sets."

This was by far the biggest surprise to me. It might be a little bit on the expensive side for what it is but I'm surprised others weren't as impressed with it as I was.

I think perhaps surprising is the Luke's Landspeeder, which despite a bit 'meh' initial response, is actually 3rd equal (with Optimus Prime) in terms of 'owned' sets.

And despite being in 'Back Order' for much of it's life online and therefore harder to get, BTTF tops the 'owned' and 'total' count.

@Mandalorian6285 said:
"Mhm Baby Oda Likeys da anylysis"

Almost as tasty as frog eggs.

@Huw

I like the heat map for the raw data. But perhaps you could invert the colors for the No column so that low values (a positive result) will be green while high values are red.

I’m not surprised or shocked by these figures at all. By reading the comments people make on the sets’ announcements, they seem to match up with the numbers you’ve shown us.

For me it's almost supply & demand. I built up a collection over the past 10 or so years. That and we moved so I had to pack up everything while still buying sets that I wanted.

Cut to after the move and I have a room full of unopened Lego sets that I'm not so excited about anymore. I sold over $1,300 worth of Lego in the past few months.

Then the price increases hit. Some sets like the Atari console were priced out of my comfort zone for what they were. I'm the perfect demographic for the Atari but for the first time it made me think twice about the cost involved.

Hey @Huw, since some of these sets are relatively new (and some haven't been out long or not at all), I'm curious if you could go back to last year and re-evaluate how those ended up in terms of how many own them or want them. I'm really curious what changes we might see after a year. Did people eventually go out and get those sets they wanted or were they forgotten?

"21337 Table Football also received a very low score, but the vote was conducted before our reviews were published, and I'd like to think they showed that it's not as bad as it might have first appeared to be."

Nah. It's still way overpriced.

"Although we discarded the 'maybe' responses from our analysis, it may be of interest to know that 21332 The Globe received the most on-the-fence responses, with 23% of the total. It was presumably a set that people were intrigued by but weren't quite sure about it on first sight."

I honestly forgot that set existed until it was mentioned here.

I think that Lego has just saturated the market with too many high priced sets. In the beginning, the MF was highly desirable because if its popularity and when it’s out of reach you naturally dream of owning it more.
Now there are so many, and frankly as has been said above, certain subjects or models that really don’t warrant being made into a huge set (or that are not even very good) that it’s simply turning me away and making the decision to turn away pretty easy.

Very happy to see 10497 getting so much love!
I got the castle too, and love it, but I do hope they consider making some smaller classic-styled sets going forward.

@MainBricker said:
"More people want the Castle than actually bought it. Sums it up, people demand the castle sets but don't put their money where their mouth is.

If you really want something you will buy it.

Would like to see a metric of set price to ownership. The Spice Girls got a lot of negativity, but for £45 people were willing to buy it, and was a lot more popular than a lot of other sets on the list."

Set ownership doesn't even mean much anyway when it's manually added, and not verifyable by any means, one can add $100000 worth of owned sets on this site, but does that mean it's actually bought?

Ironically there are said that I've said no on but now own. The tallneck was a no but I like it but since the poll I played more of the game and got a higher paying job. Ironically it's one of only 2 on this list I own, the other being the Sanctum but I'm definitely getting the castle at some point, I had budgeted for it when it was only a rumour before I got the better paying job!

@PDelahanty said:
"Hey @Huw, since some of these sets are relatively new (and some haven't been out long or not at all), I'm curious if you could go back to last year and re-evaluate how those ended up in terms of how many own them or want them. I'm really curious what changes we might see after a year. Did people eventually go out and get those sets they wanted or were they forgotten?"

This is exactly what I was thinking. Particularly given the price of some of these sets, it could be a case of people who plan to get them just not yet having had the financial resources to do so yet. It seems somewhat unfair to compare the purchase numbers of a set that’s been available for ~10 months and one that’s been available for ~1 month.

Something else I’ve noticed when stepping back is how much more overall negative the reaction has been to the giant Marvel sets, than the reactions to giant Star Wars sets, even though the biggest Star Wars sets are priced much higher than the Marvel ones…? So part of me believes price alone can’t be the only factor in the reactions…

I‘m surprised that the Mighty Bowser is so low on the list. It’s quite affordable and a good price per piece deal and one of the best poseable Lego figures ever. Nice colors, clever build - an day one by for me.

I'm not interested in most licensed sets - I guess I'm just not that much into mainstream popular culture - so I would have voted mostly not interested on these. Based on the press releases these are aimed at fans of whatever license they're based on rather than fans of LEGO. The poll analysis is interesting but as Huw says, it only shows that things AFOLs like are more likely to be purchased by AFOLs.

Having said that, the trainer and the Queer Eye set were 22/23 and 21/23 on last year's analysis and were quite heavily discounted so Brickset readers' tastes in that instance did match the general public. Neither was a particularly high priced set compared to this year's bottom of the table.

I pay as little attention as possible to anything football related as it is possible for someone living in Europe, so I can't really comment on last year's last place Camp Nou.

In the poll for one of those sets I have selected 'no it doesn't interest me' but I ended up buying this set to get a gwp and sell it in the future. I can imagine other people selecting similar option and then owning the set because it was a gift or even an 'investment'.

10497 might just be the first bigger set I bought for myself at full retail price. And I certainly don't regret it, even when that same shop had it at 20% discount just a week later. But day 1 purchase? That book about the Ferrari Daytona, that might have been one if I had the chance....but only because of that exact reason. But for everything else? I'm Dutch enough to be patient. And sometimes too patient...

From this list the mediocre ranking of the Vespa surprises me the most. Good set at a decent price. To be fair, I got it as a gift, but probably would have bought it myself otherwise.

And I don't really understand the discussion above about the caste.....especially for a €400 set it seems to be doing pretty good. Surprisingly so actually. I'm not a big castle fan myself, but even if I was, I likely wouldn't buy it, certainly not without a substantial discount. And sure, people wanted something bigger and more detailed than the €100 castle, but there's a whole (castle-)grey area between those two sets.

@Block_n_Roll said:
"I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking we need another choice: "I like it, I want it, I can afford it, but I'm not going to buy it because the price is a rip-off".

There's a load of significant sets that I'd like to get, and can easily afford, but I simply won't buy them because of the ridiculous pricing."
We sure need a "I'll buy it when it gets a nice discount"-option.....

I think minifigure scale is way more important Lego realizes, For the biggest two blunders of the year, minifigure scale sets of the same price point would sell like hotcakes. Like can you imagine if they made a black panther set of that waterfall fighting grounds? That would be incredible! Or as others have said, instead of the hulk buster they could have made a avenger's tower on the same scale as the daily bugle.

I know it sounds anoying, and I promise I really don't care about exclusive minifigures! But lemme use different toys as a example. If you collected star wars figures, would you want a half scale Han Solo? Like ~3 feet tall, heavily detailed and articulated, or would you want a millennium falcon that's scaled to all the figures you already have? Or take transformers for example, nobody wants a super tiny prime and a gigantic bumblebee, they want them the same size so they can work with each other.

Im not trying to say only minifigure scale, The infinity gauntlet and thor's hammer are great ideas in my opinion, and some set's its just not practical or accurate like the ucs star destroyer or the titanic could never be released at scale. Also there's the large scale cars that have been produced for years! including the Delorian which people really like! But large scale cars aren't part of larger themes other than large scale cars, just like plants and technic. It's all about what collection you have is what you want. No one wants the giant Han Solo

@CapnRex101 said:
"I think a lot of people would have been satisfied with either half of the whole castle. The model divides very neatly in half and both sections feel like they could be adapted into a smaller castle without much trouble.

Hopefully there is sufficient interest and LEGO will consider something a little less expensive in the future, although I think 10305 Lion Knights' Castle is worth its price."
It often baffles me that while Lego is inherently modular, it's not like they make full use of that. I mean, look at what Bluebrixx does with their Blaustein castle: after the initial set 4 extension sets (2 still to be released), and who knows how many more will follow. You can have a nice €200 castle, or go all the way and make it into a humongous, €680, almost 22.000 piece castle....

@SillyTwig said:
"I think perhaps surprising is the Luke's Landspeeder, which despite a bit 'meh' initial response, is actually 3rd equal (with Optimus Prime) in terms of 'owned' sets.

And despite being in 'Back Order' for much of it's life online and therefore harder to get, BTTF tops the 'owned' and 'total' count."

I think that would be: "And considering it's in 'Back Order' for much of its life online and therefore harder to get, BTTF tops the 'owned' and 'total' count."

@sjr60 said:
"My most needed box is,
"I like it, the price is fine, but have you seen the size of my gas bill?" "
Make a fireplace so you can heat your house on empty Lego boxes, used sticker sheets, and if things get dire you could burn the instructions too! Finally a good reason for these massive, dumbed down instructions nowadays ;-)

Or just order some Lepin to burn...

@ra226 said:
"... I would love to see more re-imagined classic sets like this. I know, I know, there are some who say Lego is leaning too hard into adult-focused sets... but in this case, I can live with it!..."

I would heavily disagree that the galaxy explorer is an adult set. It does have some advanced building. but once it's finished it can be enjoyed by people of all ages, and there are playsets that cost more than it too, so price isn't even a question.

The poll seems right to me. Except for the Holiday Street set, which was a disappointment this year. But.... I bought it anyway, as I collect them. That's probably why it still ranked highly despite being probably the least exciting of the whole series.

By the way, I also thought Jazz Quartet deserved better, though it's true that the final release was inferior to the original.

Bowser was a tour-de-force , but I think the market for it is limited.

It would be interesting if someone at Lego could give a hint at how these compare to real world sales overall (realizing that they probably can't give away exact sales data).

@Huw It would be interesting to see what the numbers look like when these sets retire. Some of us have to wait beyond the calendar year to pick them up...

@besch64 said:
"Nice to see that the Horizon Tallneck is relatively high on the list. I imagine pretty much anybody with interest in the Horizon property or sci-fi/robots generally was immediately interested in such a beautiful set at a relatively low price, while many people who don't share those interests seemed to be interested in the excellent Aloy minifig anyway. Definitely a crowd pleaser.

On the flip side, I'm surprised to see The Mighty Bowser so low. I haven't built it yet, but when it was announced I was immediately blown away by the engineering of the puppet functions, as well as the accuracy to the character. Biases aside, I honestly think it's probably the most impressive at-a-glance Lego set I've ever seen. That combined with the fact that Bowser is probably one of the most recognizable "cartoon" characters in the world makes his low placement a big surprise to me. It's not even expensive relative to its piece count, size, or to other comparable licensed model sets.

This makes it look like I'm particularly interested in Lego videogame stuff, but my collection is pretty traditional in makeup (mostly cars, modulars, and unlicensed Ideas)."

I think the Mario sets have been having saled issues across the board. They are frequently discounted. I had the first season and sold it to my sons friend who was trying to catch up his collection. No more Mario for me

It's clear to see that the most desirable sets are the ones with minifigures, especially minifigure scale sets. I'm talking about the Lion Knight's Castle and Sanctum, not Luke's Landspeeder. I think this is particularly evident in LEGO Super Heroes, where most collectors of the line are more interested in the figures they come with. Remember back in the early days of the line when the sets were often ugly as anything, but people snatched them up anyway because this was their chance to get a new character like She-Hulk, Darkseid or Red Hood. Minifigures have always been the driving force of the Super Heroes sets.

This is an issue that is prevalent with Black Panther and Hulk Buster. They might be great display pieces, but the lack of minifigures don't appeal to the core LEGO Super Hero fanbase. Sure, there have been sets like the SHIELD Helicarrier and 1989 Batmobile before, but neither of them would set back a fan $500 and they had some interesting to support the model. It would honestly be a lot better if LEGO stuck to sets like Arkham Asylum, the '66 Batcave or the Daily Bugle where there's opportunity for an iconic build and a fantastic array of minifigures.

In other words, minifigures build anticipation and sell. If you can't include minifigures or mess them up, you're pretty much relying on a fair price, good display value and the size of whatever niche market you're appealing to in order to create interest.

@MrGurt said:
"I think minifigure scale is way more important Lego realizes, For the biggest two blunders of the year, minifigure scale sets of the same price point would sell like hotcakes. Like can you imagine if they made a black panther set of that waterfall fighting grounds? That would be incredible! Or as others have said, instead of the hulk buster they could have made a avenger's tower on the same scale as the daily bugle.

I know it sounds anoying, and I promise I really don't care about exclusive minifigures! But lemme use different toys as a example. If you collected star wars figures, would you want a half scale Han Solo? Like ~3 feet tall, heavily detailed and articulated, or would you want a millennium falcon that's scaled to all the figures you already have? Or take transformers for example, nobody wants a super tiny prime and a gigantic bumblebee, they want them the same size so they can work with each other.

Im not trying to say only minifigure scale, The infinity gauntlet and thor's hammer are great ideas in my opinion, and some set's its just not practical or accurate like the ucs star destroyer or the titanic could never be released at scale. Also there's the large scale cars that have been produced for years! including the Delorian which people really like! But large scale cars aren't part of larger themes other than large scale cars, just like plants and technic. It's all about what collection you have is what you want. No one wants the giant Han Solo"

I don't understand this post at all. The products you're describing exist! Star Wars merchandise comes in many different scales, price points, and articulation levels. People do want 3' tall busts and 1' tall action figures and are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for them. Sideshow Collectibles caters directly to that audience. Sometimes it's a subset of fans who collect other lines like the Black Series, sometimes they are fans who don't collect toys but might have higher end collectibles like replica or even screen-used props.

Are these products as popular or as successful as more traditional mass market toys? Not generally, no. But they can be commercially viable, and for Lego, they present an opportunity for reaching new customers and potentially converting them into purchasers of their other more traditional products.

This applies to other brands, too. There are many oversized Prime and Bumblebee toys in particular, including children's toys with play features and adult collectibles like the Super7 Super Shogun Prime.

Something else to look at with other toy companies are their limited edition and higher end products like HasLab or Mattel Creations. The latter includes trendy art cobranded toys in limited runs and with price tags in the hundreds of dollars. There are markets for these things.

What I get annoyed by is the implicit attitude here that when something is less popular -- among a very specific audience, like commenters on this website! -- it translates into "nobody wants this." That's just not true. Maybe other people who aren't like you want it, or maybe fewer people want it, but it's false to say people don't want these things.

Yes, there are many people here who would rather have more minifigure scale playsets. I'm one of them! I don't want the oversized Hulkbuster and I do want a modular Avengers Tower. I mean, I already bought two of the playsets. That doesn't mean that the Hulkbuster shouldn't exist, it just means it isn't for me, and I'll wait another year or two or three when they do put one out. In the meantime, I hope that the Hulkbuster finds its audience and makes people happy. Or not! It doesn't matter to me at all if a given a Lego product is successful. It doesn't impact me if a toy I like does well or a toy I don't like doesn't, as long as Lego keeps making things I do like. Which in my opinion, and in nearly everyone's that I've seen here, they do!

@RaiderOfTheLostBrick said:
"It's clear to see that the most desirable sets are the ones with minifigures, especially minifigure scale sets. I'm talking about the Lion Knight's Castle and Sanctum, not Luke's Landspeeder. I think this is particularly evident in LEGO Super Heroes, where most collectors of the line are more interested in the figures they come with. Remember back in the early days of the line when the sets were often ugly as anything, but people snatched them up anyway because this was their chance to get a new character like She-Hulk, Darkseid or Red Hood. Minifigures have always been the driving force of the Super Heroes sets.

This is an issue that is prevalent with Black Panther and Hulk Buster. They might be great display pieces, but the lack of minifigures don't appeal to the core LEGO Super Hero fanbase. Sure, there have been sets like the SHIELD Helicarrier and 1989 Batmobile before, but neither of them would set back a fan $500 and they had some interesting to support the model. It would honestly be a lot better if LEGO stuck to sets like Arkham Asylum, the '66 Batcave or the Daily Bugle where there's opportunity for an iconic build and a fantastic array of minifigures.

In other words, minifigures build anticipation and sell. If you can't include minifigures or mess them up, you're pretty much relying on a fair price, good display value and the size of whatever niche market you're appealing to in order to create interest."
Re: Luke's Landspeeder, I think you're missing a huge part of this story, where fans might not SAY they desire it, but based on self-reported ownership, they actually DO. Most of your post is "most people want the same things I want," specifically large scale sets with many minifigures. First, that's not at all evident in the data, and second, you don't explain why that is, just what your preference is.

To be clear, it's absolutely fine to have that preference, and it's entirely possible that pricier minifigure scale sets are more popular than pricier sets at other scales like the UCS starfighters or the non-minifigure scale Bat-vehicles. But I don't even see why either of those are arguments worth having. Based on the last decade or so of products that Lego has released, they don't see this as an either/or. Whether there is one group of customers that can support both types or disparate and overlapping segments that sometimes get both, there's room for those. Personally, I want both to continue for general and selfish reasons. I think it's inherently good when there are more products for more people, because it means the fanbase is wider and healthier. And I also really like product variety. I buy almost all the minifigure-scale starfighters, but I also needed the UCS A-wing. I like the Mario playsets and I want Bowser too. For that range of reasons, I don't think it would be better if Lego just stuck to one style of set. Not better for other collectors, not for me, and certainly not for Lego.

The BTTF set seems to be the biggest success of these sets since it has been out of stock constantly since its release. Only recently did it come back in stock and stay available. For the price and the fans of the Classic space set and considering many people buy multiple copies of it, yet I don't recall it ever being out of stock, that surprises me.
I was disappointed that the Loop roller coaster was not included, I thought it had a poll. This is on my wanted list & would have bought it day one, if not for life's unexpected twists that get in the way.
A few of the sets are on my wanted list, BTTF, Holiday Main St, Vincent van Gogh and the Camaro. Hopefully I can purchase them during 2023 provided the dark looming recession doesn't occur, one can hope.

I think the analysis of the 76218 Sanctum Santorum misses the fact that it's compatible with modular buildings, and people go nuts for these like nothing else. The modular building collectors would not have minded getting an extra modular for the year, even if it's licensed to Marvel.

And the discussion of the UCS Razor Crest featured a common but extremely weird opinion that it was pointless making a set based on this vehicle because it had been destroyed in the TV show, as if its on screen fate made owning merchandise based on it a hollow experience.

Never mind that Luke's Landspeeder had far less screen time and was never seen again after the first hour of the film!

71411 The Mighty Bowser 21%
40548 Spice Girls Tribute 23%
10306 Atari 2600 18%
21337 Table Football 7%
10299 Real Madrid - Santiago Bernabéu Stadium 7%
76210 Hulkbuster 5%
76215 Black Panther 5%

All these sets sitting at the lowest score are sharing the same characteristics:
1. Display Sets And Potential Dust Collectors
2. Lack Of Play Values
3. Expensive
4. Disconnected From The Brand Promises
https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/lego-group/the-lego-brand

I've really glad to see that the feedback from the public are in the same direction that I feel towards these sets.

@ScholtzTKO said:
"The Lion Knights Castle was a real Waterloo for me. I am the exact target audience for that set, but I refuse to buy it because the price is ridiculous for what you receive. Plus I find a lot of the design choices bizarre. To me the interior is disjointed and severely lacking in space/detail for such a "premium" product. There are some cool figures and some real bad ones. And frankly, it's just not as big as it seems. Then these hyperpriced Marvel sets no one asked for show up, and I think we've gone off the rails on a crazy train."

Well put, this sort of feeds into why I’m on the fence about the castle. Although very cool, the size in-person just doesn’t line up with the price for me. The walls are strangely plain, and I’m not even someone who prefers a MOC level of ultra greebling.

It’s also a little funny that at my local Lego store the castle and Galaxy Explorer are nestled up to each other in the same display. If anything it puts the price disparity in contrast. The ship looks pretty big next to the castle (obviously very different shapes so it’s not a perfect comparison).

@WizardOfOss said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"I think a lot of people would have been satisfied with either half of the whole castle. The model divides very neatly in half and both sections feel like they could be adapted into a smaller castle without much trouble.

Hopefully there is sufficient interest and LEGO will consider something a little less expensive in the future, although I think 10305 Lion Knights' Castle is worth its price."
It often baffles me that while Lego is inherently modular, it's not like they make full use of that. I mean, look at what Bluebrixx does with their Blaustein castle: after the initial set 4 extension sets (2 still to be released), and who knows how many more will follow. You can have a nice €200 castle, or go all the way and make it into a humongous, €680, almost 22.000 piece castle...."

They have done that with Hogwarts castle sets. The end result is more play than display though, and much smaller.

I'd love a massive LEGO castle but I simply don't have space.

What would be great is a new modular compatible series of Castle type buildings (a farm, an inn etc) so they would fit on shelves like the regular modulars.

More BS excellence! This is the sort of inquisitive mind product that shows how this site was built and why its excellence continues to draw us in.

Lego™ used to be that way! I'm not an old conservative curmudgeon. I just remember when Lego™ used to constantly surprise me with how generous they were to the kids and how much fun it was. Now, it's just unadulterated GREED and sloppy management and service. Adults Welcome!

I have all of the top. Of the sets I do not own, I do appreciate the designs of the Bowser, Razor Crest, lighthouse, and Landspeeder. To a much lesser extent, the Hulkbuster, foosball, and Black Panther.

However, the only way I'm adding any of those sets is with a massive discount or perhaps on the very last day before they retire!

I love these a analyses!

Really enjoyable analysis thanks. Perhaps in a year you could plot how the “owned” of each of these increases over time, see if there’s seasonality or patterns to the increase in ownership.

Very interesting sharing of data, and well-presented/explained. Thanks Brickset team, amazing and unique work, as always,

@Crispin_Giles said:
"Really enjoyable analysis thanks. Perhaps in a year you could plot how the “owned” of each of these increases over time, see if there’s seasonality or patterns to the increase in ownership."

Very good idea, I would love to see some "over time" stats follow-ups.

I don't know why the stadium is so low, it looks great. I picked manchester united instead though, as it was cheaper and looked less repetitive.

@Fauch said:
"I don't know why the stadium is so low, it looks great. I picked manchester united instead though, as it was cheaper and looked less repetitive."

Those stadiums certainly look impressive, but they are very expensive, indeed seem like rather repetitive builds and take up a lot of space to display. Which makes them mostly appealing for the most hardcore of fans. And because of rivalries, some people wouldn't want certain stadiums even when they would get them for free....
(I still feel for the first stadium they should have went with Wembley, which is more or less "neutral ground")

My local toy store has a single Camp Nou set they just can't get rid of. Recently they had it discounted to €200, but still didn't sell. Last time I've been there it was back at €330. If selling it for cheap doesn't work, they might as well wait for that one idiot with too much money...

The main conclusion I draw is: Huw had some free time.

Huw, would it be possible to report on how truthfully people respond to these polls. For example, of the people who answered yes as soon as it’s released, what percent of them actually marked it as owned on Brickset within a week or two of its release? Of people who answered no, how many eventually marked it as owned? I assume you could perform these types of queries, but if you don’t collect all of this data I understand.

@alfred_the_buttler said:
"Huw, would it be possible to report on how truthfully people respond to these polls. For example, of the people who answered yes as soon as it’s released, what percent of them actually marked it as owned on Brickset within a week or two of its release? Of people who answered no, how many eventually marked it as owned? I assume you could perform these types of queries, but if you don’t collect all of this data I understand. "

So a poll isn't truthful ?

Also given the number of users here, I doubt 100% of poll respondants , track their full collections here either.

I'm not saying the Owned stats are useless on this site (I find it handy to checkbox wishlists / collection to Sync with Rebrickable for example)

But it should not be treated as scientific data as anyone can add sets they don't own, or decide not to add sets they actually own.

That said, I personally have not added sets I don't own as Owned, but have left out a whole bunch of LEGO pre year 2000 sets from before I returned in 2016.

@Huw

Why isn't "No, because I am really disappointing with what Lego have done" an option??

'No, It doesn't interest me' might cover this option but it doesn't truly reflect how I feel, where-as the opposing 'No, but I like it' is an option.

In terms of feed back I feel like you are missing an option.

- I am of course referencing my utter disappointment with the 76210 Hulkbuster.

My main problems are prices and size. 1- I'm not rich enough to by anything I want. Buying the Lion Knight Castle consumed almost half of my yearly budget for LEGOs. 2- Here in Japan the apartments are very small, so I rather buy smaller sets that can be combined.

@Huw can we add a category in the polls that says: "yes I want it but I'm poor" ?

Not too expensive classic or 80s themes seems to be the way to go for the brickset-users ^^.
Even a very good and cheap Tallneck seems to be to "odd".

@CCC said:
"I'm quite surprised how well the Spice Girls and Luke's Landspeeder has sold to Brickset members given the low anticipation, and how badly the Main Street and Camaro have sold compared to their anticipation scores. It shows anticipation doesn't always translate into sales.
"

Not only has it _just_ come out, I suspect that many people are waiting to purchase it because it is Christmas themed. Sure, some people bought the set already (like me) but it makes sense for some to just get it when they're starting to prep for christmas.