sfcityduck

I would not expect them not to collect the fee, I would expect them to pass it through to the seller.

My guess: no fees or premiums. This ilooks like a loss leader auction designed to get the name out. It is working because Every CGC member is getting emails and we are talking about it. The book will get its price.

Last sold 2016: https://www.comicconnect.com/item/682290?tzf=1

Uh .... no. Not if, as would be expected, the contract of ownership granted a fractional share of the undivided whole. Probably with a right sell the share, and with the decision to cash out the whole asset subject to a vote.

I believe there are more copies of Action 1 and D27 that haven't made it into a CGC slab than have, maybe by a factor of 2, so the existence of additional copies doesn't surprise me at all. But, I wonder if they are being slabbed now because the owner wants to absorb the cost now before the comics increase much more in value (and the fees increase) or because those issues are coming to market. For the comics in the title of this thread, it seems the owner just wanted to get slabbing out of the way (perhaps to save money or perhaps to make it easier on heirs down the road). Demographics are going to accelerate the sell-off of long held (since the 60s) collections, it is just a question of when do we hit the tipping point.

For me there are two kinds of stories: (1) the backstory on the OO who put the collection together and (2) the backstory on the discovery and significance of the collection after it was discovered. The former are what matter most to me and the backstory on the dealer discovery doesn't enhance the value of a comic for me - with the notable exception of the MH story because in terms of comic book history that collection is pivotal. So for the OO backstory, I agree Okajima is the best. But, for some of these other OO stories, I think we have to wait for the full and actual truth to come out before we can really gauge them.

I really don't see how the fact that the total fractional shares of a derivative of a comic book asset trade, when all added together, at a higher value than the market value of the subject comic book proves anything good about fractional shares. For me, it does the opposite. Rally Road prices their fractional shares above the market value of the comic book on the day of the offering. That is how they make money. The fractional share investors start out having paid well over market value. That the total fractional share value exceeds the market value of the subject comic book tells you that the people buying those shares are not doing so based on the market value of the comic. And, for me, that's a problem. Yet another thought experiment. Let's say you have a lot of funds sitting around unused. What are you going to choose to buy, all other things being equal: (1) An Action 1 from a dealer being offered for a $1.5M price or (2) 100% of the fractional shares in an identical Action 1 being held by Rally Road for $1.8M (a 20% mark-up over "market value")? The answer is obvious. So why is a fractional share purchaser willing to pay 120% of market value for a fractional share of a GA key? My guess: (1) The share price is so low the overpayment does not seem like a lot of money and (2) they get something for the extra 20% that without fractional ownership they could not claim to have - the boasting rights of "a piece of an Action 1." Obviously, a buyer who can afford to pay the $1.5M market value of an Action 1 is not going to pay the extra $300K for 100% fractional ownership because they can get EVERYTHING they want at the lower price. But, for the peasants (and I'm one of them) who can't afford $1.5M for a comic book, paying an extra, as an example, $20 over the $100 market value of their fractional share in an Action 1 to get something they otherwise could not - the boasting rights - might be worth it because the buyer does not notice or care they are being ripped off for $20. The problem is that I suspect the value of the "boasting rights" of owning a fractional share of a derivative of an Action 1 is likely to prove fleeting. To me, it seems like the same mentality that caused folks to buy "pet rocks." A fleeting hype, founded in FOMO, that ultimately proves to lack staying power as the novelty wears off and people realize they have paid money for nothing. P.S. I don't think you are crazy. I do think you are misgauging why a lot of GA collectors collect. I don't see fractional ownership as collecting at all. I also think you are more interested in the concept as an investment vehicle, and you might find a more receptive reaction in an audience more focused on investing than most here. Finally, I also think you have a view of technology and technological inevitability that is causing you to gloss over the basic question: "Is this a good idea?" I see the same problem with driverless car technology. For me, whether it is a good idea does not hinge on whether it will work, but what will happen if it does.

According to Valiantman's amazing site, a restored Action 1 6.5 and a restored D27 7.0 went on the census between August 17 and August 24.

Worth noting that Bangzoom was buying comics in the 1960s and 1970s through ads. And he was paying many more multiples than Chuck did, double digit multiples more, when he bought the 1,000+ book OO collection from D.C. that blew away the board when it was first posted - and he bought that collection in 1973 before the MH collection was purchased by Chuck.

Just out of curiosity, what are your top 3 most interesting pedigree stories (not quality of books, quality of backstory)?

That would be honest, but I wouldn't ever do that deal because I would not want the lost opportunity cost of giving someone my money for no reason. After all, what happens if they sell the book for the same price to someone else or for less? At best, I've lost the use of my money for no benefit, without obtaining what I wanted.

If I was the victim of your scenario, I'd be pissed off, very very unsatisfied, and suing for breach of contract. But, that may just be the attorney in me. My damages claim would be for the lost time value of my payments, the loss of my upside on the comic, and the loss of the expected possession. And I would expect that any dealer who did that would see that the "problem" would include that he'd never again be able to sell a book with time payments.

Here's my thought exercise on this topic. What would you rather pay $20 for: (1) a tiny tiny fractional share of an Action Comics 1 or (2) a mere photo of the Mile High Action Comics 1 owned by DA. For me, the answer is a no brainer because I know which would satisfy the collector in me.

The more I read, the more I think the disconnect here is that you are much closer to conflating "collecting" comics with "investing" in comics than I and others are. I don't see any need to enable anyone to invest in a tangible asset they can't afford on their own. There's no problem now, and no need of a fix. Fractional ownership makes sense in the business world because it generates capital to get new companies off the ground. No need for that with an old comic book. I see nothing inherently noble about overcharging people for a tiny fraction of a luxury item they could never afford, and won't really own after they buy their "fractional share." It is not about democratizing anything. In my view, it is a scheme to take cash off of people who want to claim they own something they don't, because they are willing to overpay for the prospect of gaining boasting rights. I also see it as a symbol of the evil influence of the speculator mentality in a collectibles market, and something that will feed the worst outcomes of speculation. You made a comment up thread that you wanted to privatize the holdings of museums by selling fractional shares in major art works such as the Mona Lisa. The reality is that the Louvre and all the art it contains is owned by the French Government and, derivatively, by the people of France. Thus, there is already fractional ownership of everything in the Louvre, including the Mona Lisa. To sell pieces of the Mona Lisa in the form of fractional shares would not only be entirely illogical, as the shares could only increase in value if the Mona Lisa was deaccessioned and sold, but would strip each and every French citizen of their fractional ownership of the Mona Lisa. It would take a national art treasure, and turn it into something far less savory owned by a much smaller group of people. It's an abysmal idea, that solves a problem that really does not exist. That you can't own a piece of the Mona Lisa is not a problem. You (and me) can't own lots of things. Such is life.

For me, fractional ownership is not collecting and does not enhance a collection. The fraction you own isn't even in the book at Rally Road, it is of a derivative. Might as well buy stock in Disney and Time-Warner, then you will have a derivative fraction of every Marvel and DC comic they possess, likely more than any collector could ever own.

I am not disagreeing that with or without a fractional share in some comic you might still be a collector. I am disagreeing that the fractional ownership somehow enhances my satisfaction as a collector. For me, the answer is it does not.

For me, I disagree. I don't believe that fractional ownership will give me more satisfaction as a collector because I don't view it as collecting. I view it as a form of investing, and that form of investing will, I think, hurt collecting. So the mere thought of it causes me dissatisfaction. I have not polled collectors, but I would be surprised if most viewed Rally Road style fractional ownership as collecting.

I'll take one!

Far more AF 15s (2216 U.S. and 48 U.K.) than Batman 1s (128) on the census. Far more in high grade AF 15s (24 copies 9.0+) than Batman 1s (4 copies 9.0+). And the AF 15 numbers are certain to increase more significantly than the Batman 1 count.

Here's a real world example: Rally is offering a Star Wars 1 (35 cent) in CGC 9.0 (white). That book last sold in 2020 for $9,750 (and that same year for $9,600) and that might be the issue Rally bought. They claim that the "market cap" for the book is $12,000 (which just means they are selling 12,000 shares for $1 each). For an investor to make a profit on the book it will need to sell for more than $12K. Seems like a real good deal for Rally. P.S. The legal disclosures say that investors are not really investing in a piece of the book: "The Interests represent an investment in a particular Series and thus indirectly the Underlying Asset." It appears they are selling some sort of derivative. So you don't even get the satisfaction of being able to say you own an interest in the comic book.

I am not arguing against the collection, I am arguing against the impact fractional ownership will have on the comic collecting hobby, including: * It elevates speculation over collecting * Dilutes the specialness of owning rare items * Risks artificially inflating the fractionally owned shares vis a vis the actual market value of an Action 1, with losses to the suckers fractional share owners * Risks dampening the value of Action 1 by stripping ownership of some of its special attributes that support the price (which will increase risk of prior bullet) I could go on and on.

But what aspect of the fractional ownership gives you satisfaction? All I can think of is boasting rights. After all, you can't hold it, read it, etc. Sort of like a tree falling in the woods, would you have the same satisfaction if no one knew you had it. After all, you could buy a fractional ownership in Time-Warner and Disney and own a tiny fraction of every comic DC and Marvel ever published. But, that doesn't seem good enough for you. So what's the difference? The money? The boasting? What?

I think for both of us it is a small fraction. Kudos to Valiantman for putting up a strong discussion.

What is the satisfaction in ownership of owning, to use your example, a $100 digital share of an Action 1 you can't even hold?

No. The many would be the comic collecting community, and the one would be the guy who really really really wants fractional ownership of comic books no matter the consequence to the hobby.