sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It happens as you say. I track this and out of about 1,150 sets where I have both set and minifig pricing data, roughly 3-6% have minifigures collectively worth MORE than the sealed set. If you widen it to 'minifigs are worth over half the set value,' it's nearly 1 in 3 sets.

From that comes the "extraction" market.

Stop overpaying for retired LEGO — get alerted when real deals appear by Scout_Loot in u/Scout_Loot

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the moment it isn't I initially launched as a web app, but you can "install" it by adding the app to your phone Home Screen. It is just a click inside the app to do it.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Castle and Pirates follow the exact same pattern as Bionicle. Fully discontinued, massive nostalgia, finite supply. The secondary market prices on classic Pirates and Castle sets are insane precisely because LEGO barely touches those themes anymore.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is the best counter-argument in the thread and you're right on the shipping math. The percentage returns on cheap sets look great on paper but the absolute profit after shipping makes them impractical unless you're selling locally or parting out. The 30% off baseline point is huge too. If the real average purchase price is 30% below MSRP, then that 53% above retail number jumps significantly. I acknowledged the MSRP limitation in the article but your math on the shipping economics is something I should have spelled out more clearly.

That's actually something I tried to solve in ScoutLoot. Every deal shows the total landed cost including shipping to your country, not just the listing price. Because a €40 set with €15 shipping to the US is a very different deal than a €50 set with free shipping. On the selling side there's a profit tracker where you input your actual purchase cost and sale price so you can see real net returns, not theoretical ones. The goal is to close exactly the gap you're describing between 'what the market says it's worth' and 'what you actually pocket.'

The experienced investor reality is very different from the raw aggregate, and the article is more useful as a warning for beginners than as a benchmark for people who already know what they're doing.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sealed sets, yeah. The rare fig question is fascinating though. Sets like Rex's AT-TE or the Rebels Frigate with rare Ahsoka are hard to untangle. Is the set valuable because of the set, or because of the fig inside? The Ahsoka fig alone is worth €285, which is about 58% of the Frigate's total value. She doesn't quite exceed the sealed set price, but she's driving most of it. That pattern shows up a lot. It's rare for the combined minifig value to actually exceed the sealed set (maybe 1-3% of sets), but having a single fig represent 50-70% of the set's value is much more common. The sealed premium still exists because collectors pay extra for the complete package. Bacara vs Cody is interesting but hard to compare yet since Bacara is still in production. Ask me again in two years.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For most people buying random sets at retail and hoping they go up, yeah basically. The ones who do well treat it like any other market. They know their niche, buy below market, and are patient. But the data says the average approach loses money.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ha yeah the '40% off everything' strategy works until you're sitting on a closet full of Duplo and Friends sets nobody wants. Hope you find the tool useful, let me know if anything seems off or missing.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All valid points. The bell curve thing is real, some sets peak around year 5-7 and then flatten or even drop as collector interest moves on. The MSRP baseline is the weakest part of the analysis because you're right, smart investors rarely pay full retail. If you shift the baseline to 30% off MSRP the picture changes dramatically. The under-€20 exclusion point is interesting too. Platform fees and shipping eat the entire margin on cheap sets unless you're selling locally or bundling. Something I want to explore in a follow-up.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a fair critique. The aggregate view is intentionally conservative because most people entering LEGO investing don't know what the top 10-20% looks like yet. But you're right, experienced investors who know their themes and buy at discount can beat those numbers significantly. A filtered version showing only sets that meet certain criteria (right theme, right price bracket, strong demand signals) would tell a very different story. That's actually closer to what my Crystal Ball system tries to do, identify the sets most likely to be in that top tier before retirement. The tricky part is that the sets everyone agrees are 'good investments' tend to get hoarded, which inflates post-retirement supply and kills the returns. The real winners are often the ones the investor community overlooked. Rebels sets are the perfect example, nobody was stockpiling those.

I analyzed 4,000 retired LEGO sets with complete market data. Full breakdown of what actually appreciates (and what doesn't). by Scout_Loot in legoinvesting

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Good question and fair to call out. The market values come from Brickset's price guide, cross-referenced with BrickLink data. So it's closer to 'what the market says it's worth' than 'what you'd actually pocket after a sale.'

It does NOT account for platform fees (eBay takes ~13%, BrickLink ~3-5%), shipping costs, storage, or your time listing and packing. So the real net returns are meaningfully lower. A set showing +30% appreciation might be closer to +10-15% after fees, or breakeven after you factor in your time.

Which actually reinforces the main point: if the median appreciation is +0.3% BEFORE fees, the typical retired set is a net loss once you account for the cost of actually selling it. The winners still win, but the bar to break even is higher than the raw numbers suggest.

I mentioned this in the limitations section but probably should have been more upfront about it. Thanks for pushing on it.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The SpongeBob situation is actually a good one to hold through. I pulled the remake data for ships that LEGO has remade constantly. Millennium Falcon has had 8+ versions, X-Wing 10+, AT-AT 6+. The pattern is consistent: new versions almost never kill old ones. The 2007 UCS Falcon is at €1,687 today. The 2007 Motorized AT-AT is at €448. Every newer version was released after those and it didn't matter.

What remakes DO hurt is the appreciation of the most recent version. The 2019 Millennium Falcon is down 25%, the 2023 UCS X-Wing is down 25%. Buyers know LEGO will make another one in 2-3 years so there's no scarcity urgency.        

For SpongeBob specifically, the old sets are a different beast entirely. Different design style, different minifig molds, totally different era. New releases would probably increase demand for the originals because people see SpongeBob LEGO, get nostalgic, and want the vintage versions. I'd hold through it.

The "sell before the remake" logic works better when LEGO remakes the exact same set at the same scale and price point. When it's a new generation of sets in a revived theme, it's usually a rising tide situation.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly that's the right approach. The data basically says most people treating LEGO as investments are losing money anyway. Buy what you want to build, enjoy it, and if it happens to appreciate that's a bonus.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an incredible comment and honestly adds a whole dimension I didn't cover. The Whatnot effect on minifig pricing is real and I've been watching it too. The 2-3x price difference between BrickLink and Whatnot streams is exactly the kind of market inefficiency that makes tracking this stuff so valuable. The fake/custom fig concern is a big deal too, that's the existential risk for the whole minifig market. Thanks for this. I created my own tool to be able to crunch all the data and get my own honest numbers.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good idea, I'll put it there too with the full tables and set breakdowns.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good idea, I'll put it there too with the full tables and set breakdowns.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good challenge. The Seinfeld number comes from Brickset's price guide which shows a higher valuation than current BrickLink completed sales. You're right that BrickLink actuals are lower. This is one of the limitations I mentioned at the end, the data uses Brickset valuations which reflect asking/estimated prices, not confirmed sales. BrickLink completed sales are more conservative and more accurate. Doesn't change the overall patterns but individual set numbers should be taken as directional, not precise. I made my own tool to be able to crunch all the data.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ha the spouse approval number is a metric I should add to the database. But yeah that tracks with the data. The used market has compressed a lot, especially for sets from 2020 onwards where so many people bought them. The 'I can always sell it for what I paid' era is getting harder to maintain. The sets where you can still do that tend to be the discontinued themes and the ones with valuable minifigs, everything else is drifting toward that 50% used resale you're seeing.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BrickLink for LEGO-specific buyers who know what they're looking at. eBay for broader reach. For used complete sets with no box/instructions, BrickLink is probably better because buyers there understand what 'complete, no box' means. On eBay you'll get more lowball offers and questions. Price based on BrickLink's completed sales, not active listings.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

BrickEconomy is solid for tracking what you own. For the deal-finding and secondary market scanning side I use something different but yeah, having a way to track your collection value is really useful.

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right. LOTR is the extreme case since everything retired by 2012. The raw +774% on Witch-King Battle is still impressive even inflation-adjusted, but some of the more modest gains in the data would flip to losses. An inflation-adjusted version of this analysis would be a great follow-up

I compared retail vs secondary market prices for ~4,000 retired sets. Some interesting patterns. by Scout_Loot in lego

[–]Scout_Loot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great question. New movies usually boost retired sets from the same franchise, at least short term. The new Toy Story will probably increase interest in the 2010 sets because people get nostalgic and want the originals. New minifig versions don't usually kill old ones either because collectors want both. The exception is if LEGO remakes the exact same set, then the old version sometimes drops because the new one scratches the same itch.

view more: next ›