OrangeCrush

I really am trying to cut back on modern comic purchases, but I keep running across these killer sales I just can't say no too. I spent like $500 bucks in the last couple weeks on modern comics, but at least I was able to scratch off many of the modern comics I really wanted, like many of Parrillo's & Artgerm's earlier covers. I'll only post a few of them up as it would take like 5 whole pages to post them all. 

Just finished my latest painting. Got sidetracked about halfway through and it basically just sat in my studio half finished for the last 3-4 months. Finally decided a couple weeks back that I needed to finish it up. Pretty happy with how it turned out.

22 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

Comic books that are not professionally graded ARE covered, you do know that, and you know that the prices of comics the same issue vary a lot? I think you are talking about getting the value of a encapsulated graded comics. Most of mine at the time were not CGC'd. 

and I do own a Wonder Woman 1, along with a few other books. Not all Wonder Woman 1's are worth $200k, but they can cost more than an average SA book.

That can be said for pretty much every collectible on the market. Values are not set in stone and they are constantly going up and down. That's why its so important to update your policy on a regular basis if many of your collectibles are increasing in value, especially if they are doing so by considerable margins. That doesn't mean that one can't come to an adequate figure for insurance purposes. Honestly, my advice would be to get in touch with a quality insurance rep that really understands the industry because from what I am seeing here, you could really use some help in this regard, no offense intended. 

I just hope you are not confusing people.  The reason I used CIA is because they didn't require an appraiser. I also think you will find that the value of the collections on here, vary greatly. Anyway no point in us going back and forth here, I sent you a pm.

Every post I have made in this thread has been to try and help people to not be confused and to try and convince people just how VITAL it is to have proper insurance coverage. 

9 minutes ago, Shmoopee said:

Wait are you series? You use the internet to tell you how much a comic is worth vs a person who's specialty is to appraise art? 

If your asking me if I am going to get a general value for a particular comic using various sources off of the internet, including the selling prices you see on eBay, as opposed to spending a thousand dollars to have someone come to my house and appraise all of my comics....well, yep I am going the internet route each and every time. It certainly worked just fine for me the last time I had a major loss. Don't get me wrong, if you want to spend a crapload of money to bring in an appraiser so you can get a value that is pretty much going to fall right in line with the pricing you see online then by all means have at it. I don't like wasting money if I don't have to and bringing in an appraiser to appraise my comics is definitely a waste of money in my book, especially when the insurance company isn't demanding that I do it. I was more than content with the money I got for my comics when we had our fire and I am perfectly content with the amount my comics are insured for right now. I have absolutely no need for an appraiser. 

16 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

What isn't the case? I did call my carrier and a few other suggested ones and they DID say I'd need appraisals on the comics before they would be covered. I even spoke to a few people here about doing them. CIA did not require appraisals. It's a fact, not a guess, I made the calls myself.

Then the agents you talked to have no clue what thier talking about or your using a really lousy insurance company. To make people appraise items that any 10 year old could find the value on just using the internet makes absolutely no sense at all. In all my years working in the field, I never once saw an insurance company make people have things like comics appraised and I haven't had to have a single comic that I own appraised either and my insurance company has a complete list of every comic I own. My advice, get a better insurance company or ask for a different rep next time you call. 

Now if you owned an Action Comics #1, a Wonder Woman #1, or any other comic that had a value of $200,000+...well, that would b a different matter entirely as the difference of just a few grades can be as much as $50,000+. I would expect an insurance company to have comics like those appraised. 

On 3/21/2018 at 4:07 PM, skypinkblu said:

The problem with a rider is, you most likely will need to get appraisals before you get the insurance or you won't collect if something happened. I had a jewelry rider and I almost got stuck because 1 thing was stolen (in about 15 years of paying premiums) and the person who did the original appraisal was no longer in business.

I called our carriers before I bought collectible insurance. They said I'd need appraisals.  If my books were all cgc maybe they'd take GPA, but mine are not all cgc and GPA changes all the time.

I called a few other places and they all needed professional appraisals, too.  CIA did not, they just want a list (pictures of course if you have them) and a separate list of anything over $5k.

This really isn't the case at all. The only items you would need to get appraised are things like jewelry (due to the variance in value based on the quality of the gems), very rare items, items where only a few exist, or really old antiques. And with most people those items would represent less than 1% of the items being insured. Given the sheer amount of price guides that are out there, including websites that track the price of various auctions, one shouldn't have any problem getting a fairly accurate value on the items they are insuring and the only times insurance companies will demand an appraisal is if you have an item valued significantly higher than the normal market value. And this is another example of why saving your receipts is so vital. Its not just for proof of purchase, but also to show the amount you spent on the item. Insurance companies have massive databases regarding the value of various merchandise.

Out of all of the items we had insured at the time we had our house fire, there were only a few items that we needed to have appraised at the request of the insurance company. One of the items was my Ansel Adams "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" print and the reason they requested an appraisal on that print is because that print is a very unique case in the world of limited edition prints as Adams continued making prints of that image over the years using different techniques and different sizes as he was never fully satisfied with the prints he made for that image. So the value on that print can vary dramatically given the size of the print, when it was printed, the method he used to print it, wether its signed or not, etc. 99% of the items people wind up insuring do not require any sort of appraisal. 

On 3/20/2018 at 1:37 PM, Mayor006 said:

Not suggesting this for individuals, but a lot of companies self insure up to a certain amount and then get coverage for incidents over that.  So if you have an extra million laying around you can set that aside and then get a policy at a reduced rate for anything above that.

Thats basically what riders are. Most homeowners policies cover up to a certain amount with certain contents like jewerly. Depending on the company, it can be anywhere from $500 to a couple thousand depending on your policy. At that point you get riders to insure specific items above and beyond your standard policy. One of the nice things about riders is you can insure only the items you want to insure. If you don't want to insure something in your house, you don't have too. This allows you to pick and choose just what is and isn't covered and can ultimately help you save some money on your insurance premiums. 

11 minutes ago, the blob said:

I guess their business model works for them. It lets them instantly sell out prints that imho are not all that interesting.

Of course the business model works for them as speculators and investors now make up a significant portion of the people collecting in all of the various collectible markets, especially those dealing with limited editions. And those speculators and investors are making a killing in the Mondo market and have been for years. That doesnt change the fact that the people who wind up getting screwed are the people who legitimately want to collect these prints and not just flip them on eBay. Everyone is entitled to buy as they see fit. Myself, I refuse to support companies that put flippers above legitimate collectors. 

17 hours ago, the blob said:

Re: Mondo..a company that carefully avoids flooding the market with product doesn't sound that terrible in this day and age. they want to keep their stuff exclusive I guess.

There is a VERY big difference between having proper edition sizes and flooding the market. Actually gauging proper edition sizes is one of the easiest things in the entire print market. If prints sell out in a matter of minutes then the edition sizes are too small. If prints linger for months and months on end without selling out then the edition sizes are too big. A print with a proper edition size will sell out in a timely manner, but it won't sell out too fast and it won't sell out too slow. Sideshow's premium art prints are a perfect example of a print line that has had edition sizes that are pretty much spot on given the amount of demand there is in the market for those prints. 

Here is one print I can't wait to get. I didn't realize it had gone up for order and by the time I did realize it, they were sold out. So I got on Sideshow's waitlist, but I never expected in a million years that it would wind up converting. Someone obviously defaulted on their payment as I got a notice last week that my waitlist converted. According to the tracking info, it should be arriving tomorrow. 

Olivia De Berardinis has been absolutely killing it as of late, especially with her Wonder Woman prints. This is her 3rd Wonder Woman print. I really didn't care for the 2nd print as the colors behind Wonder Woman were just too saturated for my taste, but the first Wonder Woman print she made, along with the 3rd one I posted up above are just amazing prints. I can't wait to display the 2 side by side. Here is a pic of the first Wonder Woman print by Olivia. Its one of my all time favorite Wonder Woman prints! I am extremely thankful I was able to get a copy at the MSRP. 

3 hours ago, F For Fake said:

I'm not a big print guy, for the same reason I don't buy a lot of original art anymore: I want to SEE the stuff I'm buying, and I'm just about out of wall space. If it's just sitting around in a portfolio, I feel like that's sort of defeating the purpose of owning it.

That being said, I have my weaknesses.

Mondo posted up the remaining stock (or at least the first round of it) from their recent BTAS show. Most of the stuff sold out in about 30 second or so. The original print runs on these were mostly around 100-150 for the variants and 250 for the regulars, so after the gallery show I imagine they only had a handful for sale on the site. So, no big surprise on the fast sellouts. I managed to snag two of the variants that I wanted. Missed out on couple more. That's just how things roll with Mondo. Happy to have these three headed my way.

Very nice prints!! Part of me is really bummed out I stopped collecting Mondo prints as they really do produce some stellar prints. I was up to roughly 70 prints when I finally threw in the towel and sold my collection. I just could no longer support the business model Mondo has in place. Not only have bots become a bigger and bigger problem, but they have also refused to increase edition sizes even tho the popularity and the number of people trying to buy Mondo print has increased at least 10 fold over the last 5-6 years. Out of all of the print markets I have collected in over the last 20+ years, Mondo is without question the worst in regards to gauging proper edition sizes. If I was lucky I would get 1 out of every 5-10 print that I would try and buy and I refuse to spend 3-5 times the MSRP just weeks after a prints release. I wrote Mondo at least 10 emails during the last couple years I collected then, expressing my disappointment in the way they were handling the market and they just didn't care. That much was very clear to see from the replies I got from Mondo. They don't care if flippers wind up buying them and the real collectors have to pay ridiculous sums of money to obtain a print. Again, as long as they are selling out and making their money, thier all good. Thier refusal to take these issues seriously finally made me throw the towel in. I did wind up making around $5,500 in profit on the roughly 70 Mondo prints I sold when I finally got out of the market so at least there's that.

As for the whole portfolio topic, this I have to disagree with wholeheartedly. I absolutely LOVE kicking back on my couch and browsing through my various portfolios. Its like reading an oversized art book, just with much bigger pictures. I browse various portfolio's of mine at least once or twice a week so at least for me, having prints in portfolio's doesn't have any ill effect on how often I view the actual prints I store in portfolio's. Here is a picture of some of my 13x19 and 11x17 portfolios that I have stored in one of my smaller closets. 

The taller portfolio's on the left are Itoya 13x19 Profolio Professional Portfolio's and the smaller one's on the right are Itoya 11x17 Profolio Professional portfolio's. I absolutely love those portfolio's as they are padded, which makes them super comfortable to look through, and Itoya's Polyglass pages are just crystal clear so the artwork looks amazing. Even Prat's Start 4 18x24 portfolio's are extremely comfortable to look through while kicking back on your couch. Just because prints are stored in a portfolio doesn't mean you can't enjoy them like any other piece of art you own. In fact, as much as I loved framed artwork up on the wall, I actually enjoy browsing through my portfolio's more as when your sitting down browsing through artwork in your portfolio's...well, you can really take your time and really appreciate every aspect of the print. Its just not the same doing that with prints that are hung on the wall. 

As for frames and wall space, that isn't an issue for me at all as I matte and frame all of my own prints, something I HIGHLY recommend everyone learn how to do themselves. Not only will it save you a CR*PLOAD of money, but you can also be sure its matted archivally since your doing it yourself. On top of that its very easy to learn and the equipment you need to matte your own prints is very inexpensive. The money you will save on just 1 or 2 prints being framed professionally will be enough to buy everything you need. And the best part about doing your own framing and matting is it gives you the ability to switch out the prints you have framed. As I have stated in previous threads, I can switch out any print I have in a frame in just a couple of minutes tops. In fact, like 2-3 times a year I wind up switching out all of the framed artwork in my house. I have 3 Light Impressions boxes full of matted comic artwork, 2 boxes of matted photography prints by other photographers I know (we get together every so often and trade prints) and I have 8 boxes full of matted photography prints of my own photography work. So I literally have a crapload of matted artwork that I can have up on my wall in just a matter of minutes. 

Anyways, as always to each their own. All I can say is that I enjoy my prints all the time including the prints that aren't framed and up on my wall. 

15 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

Most "modern" collectors would cave to trends from the various sources you mentioned, its convenient to think that the evil-doers are the bloggers/IGers/FBers. but this is not new, in the 90s it was Wizard, and even before that you had savvy dealers (hello chuck R) who pumped the product wildly. I fell victim to many of Chuck's rantings back in the 80s and went full on with indie B&W, adult & underground stuff (Quadrant, Jaberwocky, etc), even HC/TPB stuff which was once very fashionable. All of it has by now long cooled off. Not to say that Chuck was lying when he said that this stuff is gonna be HTF. It was. But fast forward to some 20-30 years later and theres absolutely zero demand for it

Great post. I just read an article last week that was making the argument that the Becket Price guide for baseball cards wasn't just reporting baseball card prices, but was in fact setting the prices in many instances and were largely responsible for the huge increase in popularity we saw with baseball cards during those years, especially with the spectators that entered the market. And of course, the readers of Beckett Monthly made a LOT of purchases based off the reporting done in that magazine and the prices posted in that magazine. 

23 hours ago, Mayor006 said:

Lots of things I take away from this thread already....

One of these days that "modern" comic book, printed back in the 80's is going to be well over a 50, 60, 70 years old.  Yes, true atomic, golden, silver and copper will be even older, but still time marches on and things happen.  Drinks are spilled, fires burn, buildings collapse, things are lost.  Things become rarer across the board. Not necessarily more valuable, just rarer.  Those modern Zenescope covers limited to 250 copies or less? Probably not worth much, but will be pretty darn scarce in less than 50 years!  So realize what it is you are collecting for....is it scarcity, your enjoyment, or something like popularity?

Speaking of popularity, with the way technology works "today" it is very easy to influence people as to what should be popular.  How? Well, let's start a forum on a board where we conserve books and tell people what we think is hot for instance.  Let's start groups on social sites and share stories about the next big movie coming out and all the books it was based off of.  Stuff like this didn't exist less than 20 years ago and will continue to change as the generations do.  Word of mouth, zines, newspapers, and magazines were the way of getting word out then.  Now it is word of mouth, text, email, blogging, the internet, podcasts, and thankfully a few of the prior generation's mediums made it as well.  Each generation will have different influences that set what is popular for them.

I enjoy reading these discussions, especially on how everyone feels the market is performing.  I've seen prices increase in GA for sure and in some niche areas of what I would consider the modern market, i.e. the "movie" and "celebrity" markets for sure.  That last one hasn't been discussed much, but with the online market of Celebrity Authentics and SS Facilitators I think its an interesting market that wasn't even feasible 20 years ago.

I feel like a lot of people around my age (46) are thinking the way I am from the comments, that I want to focus my collection.  I went to a small show in Atlanta yesterday and spent two hours surrounded by a LOT of people diving in boxes.  Some incredible books on the wall and I was either just not feeling it or, what I'm afraid of, I'm just not interested in buying them anymore.  I'm happy to see them, but I don't feel they need to be mine.  I bought one book to complete a set that I will be listing on Ebay.  

Lastly, these are all just my opinions.  These and $5 might still get you a happy meal at McDonald's so take them for what they are worth.

 

The inherent problem with this line of thinking is that there is a BIG difference between collectibles that become rare naturally over time and collectibles made to be rare on purpose. Yes, Zenescope's comics that are limited to a couple hundred copies will likely become more rare as time goes on, but the one thing your not factoring into this is just how many of those books exist. Its not just how many of a particular comic exist, but also how many of those types of comics are in existence and Zenescope is pumping out those really limited comics in ridiculous numbers. 10 years from now there will be so many of those comics that it will be next to impossible even keeping up with all of them and that will unquestionably have an effect on the overall demand on those comics as well as the overall price. If you look at comic production back in the golden age and silver age, you didn't have hundreds of different variants being released annually. 

Again, there is a VERY big difference between something that becomes rare naturally over time and something that is produced to be rare on purpose. If I were able to place a wager, my money would be on most of Zenescope's rare variants dropping in price considerably as the years go by. 10 years from now, I expect most people will be able to buy 85% of Zenescope's variants for $10-$15 tops, if that much. 

Not to mention, most of the variants being produced today are being bagged and boarded or slabbed, so its going to take SIGNIFICANTLY longer for those comics to become rarer and rarer as time goes on. Comics will never become rare like they did back in the day. The pre speculation era has come and gone and people really need to readjust thier expectations in regards to rarity and the rate at which comics will start to become rarer over time. And its the same with a lot of other collectors markets as well. Many collectors now keep various collectibles unopened, like action figures. And thier putting them into protective slabs or boxes, just like people are doing with comics. So many of those collectibles will literally last for hundreds of years before they start to see noticeable degradation. 

On 3/17/2018 at 11:36 PM, FineCollector said:

There's someone posting a Harley Quinn #1 retailer variant on a Facebook group, and I'm trying to figure out why people are so crazy about that book.  I get that it's a 1:25, but if it was a Justice League, no one would care.  I can't picture anyone buying that without having all the other issues.  Gotta be Harley completists, right?

So far, I can picture a lot of people chasing every appearance of Harley Quinn, Deadpool, Carnage, and Venom.  Who are they, what makes them so ravenous for those characters, and how do we hook them on something with more history to it?

I don't believe this at all. IMO, completionist collecting is pretty much dead in the comic industry. The comic industry and the sheer number of variants, some of them being ridiculously expensive, really put an end to that kind of collecting. I have always been a completionist collector, dating all the way back to when I collected baseball cards as a kid. That's not to say that there aren't people out there collecting a lot of comics from their favorite runs or characters, but that is a completely different ballgame than being a completionist collector. The only completionist collectors these days are people collecting runs that don't have many variants or people that have EXTREMELY deep pocket books. 

As for why that Harley #1 is so popular...well, that could have a lot to do with Harley in general being ridiculously popular these last few years running. I have posted on multiple occasions expressing my not understand why Harley has become so crazy popular all of the sudden. If you include all of the various merchendise that is released for comic characters (comics, premium statues, smaller statues, etc.), there are very few characters that can match the sheer number of releases Harley has had the last 2-3 years running. Harley is without question one of the most popular DC characters on the market right now and that has been the case for at least the last coupe years and it shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. So nothing really surprises me anymore in regards to Harley purchases. 

Since the comic print market has absolutely exploded in popularity the last 5+ years and considering prints are one of my single favorite collecing hobbies, I figured it might be nice to have a thread on these boards that focused on people's print collections/purchases. I just got done taking pictures of many of my newer prints for insurance purposes so I figure I would start things off by posting some of those up. And sorry for the slightly blurry pics. I have really unsteady hands. I will start using a tripod for all future uploads. 

Just placed 3 new pre-orders from Sideshow. 

Kier: Death’s Warbringer

Gallevarbe: Eyes of the Queen

And finally ordered Lady Deadpool. Have been resisting ordering that piece as the price is like $100 more thanI like to spend on 1:4 statues, but I absolutely love the statue, especially with the unmasked portrait. IMO, its one of the best portraits I have seen from Sideshow the last couple years running. 

7 hours ago, speedcake said:

I need a real camera...

Aw Yeah!! The addiction has definitely taken hold, lol. Just in case your interested, Parrillo is very active on sites like Facebook and Instagram. Here are the links in case your interested. Its great for seeing a lot of his work that isn't for comic covers. 

http://www.lucioparrillo.com

https://www.facebook.com/Lucio.Parrillo.Art

https://www.instagram.com/_____lucio_parrillo_art_____/?hl=en

http://comiconart.com/artist/lucio-parrillo

That Warlord #14 for a buck, you say... I cry 

You and me both!

8 hours ago, justafan said:

the insurance business is a legal scheme where there is an inherent conflict of interest I never really understood. You see them being all friendly and talking about being there for you with great customer service when you are signing up. everyone pays in happy to pay the premiums for coverage and hoping to never need it (including the company and shareholders) but should anything ever happen, the customer has piece of mind that they will be covered. then something happens and the insurer either makes it a PITA becoming the antagonist (what happened to being there for you) or they fully pay out the claim and promptly drop you as a customer.  that 1 and done is fine if you plan on never collecting comics again or whatever thing you were insuring but being penalized for using the service that they offered just doesn't seem right.  I get that they are a business trying to make money but therein lies the conflict of interest.

I might as well just pay what I would normally pay in premiums into a CD or stable value fund and withdraw my money when a loss occurs. at least I'll get my premiums back with some interest. 

This was exactly the point I was making a couple posts back. Your damned if you do make a claim and damned if you don't as you will lose money on the items stolen or destroyed. This is without question the most screwed up aspect of the entire insurance industry. To penalize people (raising their insurance premiums) because they had a legitimate loss/claim should be illegal. I saw people that had paid for insurance for 15-20 years without having a single loss/claim and even those people wind up seeing an increase in premiums when they finally do make a claim. Its absurdity at a level that is hard to properly describe in words. The main reason why this has become so prevalent the late 20+ years is because insurance companies have slowly moved from being business's whole main goal was protecting people against losses to being corporate bodies whose main goals is making as much money as possible while still protecting thier customers. That has caused significant increases in insurance premiums the last 20 or so years and IMO is a huge conflict of interest. 

All that being said, taking the route your suggesting, that being putting the money you would have normally paid for insurance premiums and putting that money into CD's or some other kind of stable investment fund should really only be considered a viable option if you just don't deem your collectibles worthy of insuring. For example, people that have very large or small collections that just aren't really valuable or even people that have just a few misc collectibles that are somewhat valuable. Had I taken this kind of approach back in the day, I would have lost over $350,000 in contents alone during the fire we back in 2008. Not to mention the 2 photography losses I had in Rome and Costa Rica, which came out to be $40,000 to $50,000 in those 2 loses  So again, it really depends just how much your insuring and the value of the items your insuring. If I only owned  a couple thousand dollars in various collectibles....well, I would definitely have ben FAR more open to not having insurance at all. Of course, that just isn't the case and I would be a complete wreck every time I left my house if I wasn't properly insure. Again, I sleep like a baby these days knowing full well I am 100% insured with all of my various collectibles. If others feel differently or feel its worth the risk not getting insurance...well, that is entirely up to each individual. And while I personally don't recommend going that route, its not my decision to make. This is a topic that each collector has to decide on their own.

5 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

OK. Except I don't think you are reading the comment of Ankurj incorrectly. He was simply told they are fully covered in case of catastrophic damage.

I suspect you are replying to the loss under discussion, not the Ankurj post. As a seasoned insurance specialist, I am sure you are aware that the coverage that Ankurj was told means nothing as an answer, and the question arises if the framer he referred to understands what catastrophic means and what an umbrella means and what it covers, or even understood what Ankurj was asking.

But, I am easy. I will go with you being correct.

Correct. I was not referring to Ankurj's post.

56 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I think you may not be covered.

He should absolutely be covered under the framers insurance. I can pretty much guarantee that the reason they are refusing to accept responsibility is because they don't want to have to claim anything on their insurance as that usually leads to an increase in insurance rates. This is without question the one side of the insurance business that is so blatantly screwed up. People pay for insurance in the hopes that if they have a loss they will be covered, yet if you do actually make a claim you usually wind up having higher insurance premiums. Your basically damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

4 hours ago, JS said:

They did not - they are blaming me saying I took the art back and am trying to run a scam! I've been framing with them for over 10 years. It's a shame.

I'll post a copy of the denial letter. I'll scan it. It quotes the policy provisions.

They offered no excuse, and have shifted the blame to me. I've started a lawsuit.

Interesting. I will call my homeowners about this.

I don't have it. A worker at the shop reviewed it. I will request it through court though.

I am keeping the details private because the case is now in court.

 

Thank you to everyone for all the thoughtful comments. This is an absolute mess and has made me reconsider even wanting to collect anymore. It is sucking the joy right out of it and I am really unhappy over all the additional work/stress this is all causing. That said, it's a necessary evil - insurance - so I will continue to look for a good, fair, honest policy so I can get the stuff I own covered. I'll keep people posted.

I understand exactly how you feel as that's exactly how I felt after we had our house fire back in 2008 and literally lost everything. After that, I swore I would never collect ever again. And while I did eventually pick collecting back up again, it wasn't until roughly 3 years later and it was buying just a single J. Scott Campbell print on eBay that opened up the flood gate .again. I was just browsing eBay for the fun of it and came across one of Campbell's Aspen prints that I absolutely loved. I figured one print wouldn't hurt so I decided to buy it. Boy was I wrong on that one. As soon as I had that one print in hand....well, it reawakened that crazy collector side in me and I proceeded to spend a LOT of money in the next 12-16 months rebuying many of the collectibles I lost. 

But again, I understand all too well how bad experiences like this can sour your overall opinion on collecting in general. 

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

I didn't ask you to devise a poicy summary of restrictions and limits. This is a collectibles-based community. People in the wider community include numismatics, original comic art, and CG is mostly comprised of comic book collectors, although there are people here who do cross-collect in areas such as collectible toys that are superhero or publisher related (i.e. Marvel/DC action figures, etc.).

It doesn't matter what the content being insured is. Its all the same regardless. So the fact that most people in here collect comics and I used an example of tools is completely irrelevant. The point I was making is equally relevant regardless of exactly what it is your insuring. 

Quote

For the most part, anything that appreciates in value should be undwritten using replacement cost coverages. In the examples I've explained earlier, one was a client who I'd written an appraisal for, who had been offered a claim payout amount, and he happened to run that number by me just to make sure he wasn't getting screwed. 

People should get replacement cost period, not just for collectibles that appreciate in value. Anyone who gets an actual cash value policy is going to get raped if they ever have a loss and the more time that goes by, the more their going to get raped. Honestly, I don't even understand why people even bother with actual cash value policies given just how much insurances companies depreciate value as the years go by. I have seen people with over $100,000 in losses on contents that wound up with only like $10-12k after the insurance company depreciated their items. Wether an item will appreciate in value should have absolutely no bearing on wether one gets replacement cost over ACV. If your going to get insurance, get replacement cost. That is the single best advice I can give to anyone looking to buy insurance. 

Quote

Contrary to your opinion that he didn't need to because he should have known himself, he did so because his replacement cost coverage was for $26K. However, his item had appreciated in value since the item the appraisal was written.

It doesnt matter if the value of the item in question increased in value. If he didn't increase the appraisal of the item on his insurance policy, he is not going to get full value. For example, if he insured that item at $26,000 and he had its value listed at $26,000 on his insurance policy and he wound up having a loss a few years later and the value of the item was now at $35,000, he will still only get $26,000 unless he updated his insurance policy in regards to the value of that item. Here is a quote taken from Adjusters International:

Quote

The insured must remember, however, that simply endorsing the policy for replacement cost coverage is not sufficient to keep it in line with actual replacement costs; the limits must be increased as well.

As this clearly states, you have to keep the value of the items your insuring updated if you actually want to get replacement cost on items that appreciate in value. If the insured doesn't keep the limits of his policy updated and the value of the individual items being insured updated, then they will only get replacement cost at the value it was initally insured at. 

Quote

The adjuster chose the most disimilar comparable you could imagine - so different in fact, I was confused if he actually knew what the hell he was doing. They offered him less than $18K. It had been over 2 years since I did his appraisal and I knew immediately he had been given a purposely out of context, lowball amount. So I did some comparables research, spent about 30 minutes writing-up an email explaining exactly what he needed to say, and which comparables to use. The item had increased in value since the appraisal was written, and the amount he ended-up getting was $32K. When he explained what I had coached him to say, there was no pushback or resistance from the adjuster - he agreed, and paid out the amount.

Well, that adjuster clearly has absolutely no clue what he is doing and I would be really surprised if he was still working in the field today. First off, if your friend had a replacement cost policy he would have been GUARANTEED the original $26,000 that the item was initially insured for. Insurance companies cannot depreciate items with replacement cost coverage. If they try and do so, you can literally sue them and for a lot more money than the said item is worth. On top of that, he is not supposed to give the insured a larger amount than the item was initially insured for. It is the insured's responsibility to let the insurance company know of any increases of value on the items your insuring. These are exactly the kinds of loop holes insurance companies look for when they don't feel like paying a claim and 99 times out of a 100, they will win in situations like this. Again, it is the insured's responsibility to keep the value of the items being insured updated. I update my policy 2-3 times a year in regards to the value of the items I am insuring as I know this game all too well and I am not giving an insurance company any ammo to use against me.

Quote

The other example was for a neighbour of mine. An elderly woman who I unfortunately learned recently had passed away over the winter. Same deal, she had been lowballed on a personal property claim, and after providing a list of comparables that should have been used instead, the adjuster wrote a cheque in the amount she deserved.

Once again, I openly admitted this happens all the time but as long as you keep all of you receipts, you have proof of ownership (I recommend receipts, taking pictures and keeping any manuals that come with the item), and you have a replacement cost policy with accurate figures in regards to what the items are worth, you will win at the end of the day and if the insurance company puts up a big fight, you can sue them for damages on top of the original claim. Most people don't take the proper steps to prove ownership, which is why insurance companies try and pull this as much as they do, but if you show them that not only do you have all the receipts, but you also have pictures and instruction manuals....well, trust me the check will be in the mail faster than you can say "Holy s*it". 

Quote

The most egregious of course was a couple who were at a local kids hospital for live saving treatment for their infant son. They were far from home, and used the Ronald McDonald house for a little over half a year. The husband did fly out several times back home, and during one of the visits, noticed their basement had flooded. When he contacted the insurance company, trying to explain they needed to get things returned to a state where it would be safe to have their immune-compromised child back at home, the insurer instead started to find ways to get out of paying, and in a roundabout way told him he wasn't covered. When he told me what was happening, I advised he contacted the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman immediately. A single inquiry from their office resulted in the family being notified by phone, email and every which way possible to not only pay out the claim, but to restore the home in a manner that was safe when their child returned home from treatment.

Well, this is a whole different ballgame as flooding is not covered under a lot of homeowners policies especially if its considered an "act of god". So without knowing exactly what policy he had and exactly what caused the flooding, its impossible to assess this situation any further. Most people have to buy separate flood insurance. 

Quote

I won't debate this point further with you because your opinion and experiences seem to be predicated on an insurance industry that is cold and calculated. While this may be true, there is a responsibility to treat people in dignified and humane manner, and insurers are neither beyond reproach, nor should they ever think they won't be held accountable for their misdeeds.

I never said insurers are beyond reproach. What I have been stressing is that you take the proper steps to make sure your properly insured, so the insurance companies CAN'T come back and screw you and believe me, its a LOT easier than some people may think. All you have to do is properly schedule your items, have proof that you owned the items (reciepts, pictures, manuals, and even affidavits from people who knew you owned a particular items) because EVERY insurance company out there will look for a way to weasle out of paying a claim if you didn't follow the proper guidelines and it is VERY EASY to follow those proper guidelines. Most people are just plain lazy in this regard as most just don't think that these kinds of losses will ever happen to them. It barely takes me any time at all because as soon as I get a new Item I immediately take pictures of it, update it on my home inventory system, which I keep multiple copies off site, and I update my policy 2-3 times a year. As long as you do it as you go along, its a piece of cake. If you wait until its just one MASSIVE job that most people would dread even thinking about...well, that just makes it that much less likely those people will do what is necessary and again, the insurance companies are well aware of all of these things. Play the game properly and you have absolutely nothing to worry about. 

3 hours ago, comicwiz said:

Not true. I've helped people not only get more out of their claim from adjusters who conveniently cherry-pick comparables that are not only dissimilar, but are so blatantly out of context that the only reasonable explanation was to pay out as little as possible. You talk about them being some kind of money fairy provided you have the right policy and that's simply not true.  I've also advised people in situations where they were told they weren't covered, and later when the proper oversight made some inquiries and were about to launch an investigation, they were notified that they somehow were magically covered and a claim would be paid out.

Insurance companies plays these games. They hire people on a contract basis and reward them to pay out as little as possible. Don't tell me the policy is the be all end all, because the truth is insurers will make certain exclusions purposely vague to find a way to wiggle out of paying. As a consumer you need to understand when these games are being played, what your rights are, and what resources and oversight are available to you.

Yes, it is true. The reason why many insurance companies try and screw people over is because those insurance companies are only all too well aware of the fact that most people are utterly clueless when it comes to their policy and insurance companies are no different than any other major corporation these days. If they think they can pay you less and get away with it, many of them will try and do just that. I even made a comment previously in this thread that stated just how often you see this sort of thing. The people that actually understand their policy and make sure they have proper coverage have absolutely nothing to worry about. So all of this really just goes right back to the point of just how VITAL it is to actually understand your policy and the various coverages you have on that policy. You will NEVER get more for a claim than is actually stated in your policy. NEVER! It doesn't matter if your the most knowledgeable person in the world in regards to consumer rights. If you have X amount of coverage for a particular category of belongings, you will never get more than that amount, period. Here are just a few examples from State Farm's basic homeowners policy in regards to contents coverages:

$200 on money, coins and medals, including any of these that are a part of a collection, bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum;

$10,000 on electronic data processing system equipment used or intended for use in a business, including but not limited to computers, tablets, mobile personal communication equipment, global positioning systems, mobile personal electronic devices used for the reproduction of sound, and standard media or non-media equipment for use with the above devices;

$1,500 on property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, while on the residence premises. This coverage is limited to $500 on such property away from the residence premises.

Electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment is not included under this coverage, and is addressed in item b. above;

$1,500 on securities, checks, cashier’s checks, traveler’s checks, money orders, gift certificates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manuscripts, passports and tickets;

$1,500 on watercraft of all types and outboard motors, including their trailers, furnishings and equipment;

$1,500 on trailers not used with watercraft;

$250 on any one item and $2,500 in the aggregate on stamps, trading cards and comic books, including any of these items that are a part of a collection;

$2,500 for loss by theft of firearms;

$2,500 for loss by theft of silverware and goldware;

$5,000 on any one article and $10,000 in the aggregate for loss by theft of any rug, carpet (ex- cept wall-to-wall carpet), tapestry, wall-hanging or other similar article;

$1,000 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, precious and semi-precious stones; and

$5,000 for loss by theft of tools.

So if someone has a set of tools tht is worth $10,000 and they have those tools stolen or they are destroyed in a fire, your only getting $5,000, period. Again, it doesnt matter what your knowledge is in regards to personal rights. The only rights you need to understand when it comes to insurance policies is just what your coverage limits are including your contents. One's knowledge on consumer rights is pretty much irrelevant. As for the protections you mentioned, those are the actual coverages on the items your insuring. 

If you actually helped someone get more out of their claim...well, that only means that the insurance company in question was trying to pull a fast one over on the insured and that the insured actually had higher amounts of coverage than the insurance company was letting on and this isn't uncommon at all. And he didn't need you for this at all. If he had actually taken the time to fully understand his policy and coverages, he would have been able to take care of this situation all on his own. 

On 3/16/2018 at 3:15 PM, comicwiz said:

You certainly may have an experience that would suggest most people are unaware of how underprotected they are, and I might agree to some extent.

However, there is a responsibility to market products that don't create a false perception of coverages that somehow position you as the gold standard, but actually turn out to be deficient in critical areas where you would otherwise expect safeguards that even standard coverages would provide.

As a company that markets itself as understanding collectors and their collectibles, reading the subset of exclusions to me would be akin to an auto policy that covers you as long as you don't drive, or ever get involved in an accident.

Knowing your policy isn't even the real issue - it's knowing your rights as a consumer and what protections are in place that matters far more in situations like this.

I disagree 100%. Knowing your policy is without question one of the single biggest problems people face when they wind up having a loss, at least that has been the case in 99% of the losses I have seen first hand where the insured wound up being dissatisfied with the amount of coverage they wound up getting because when it comes to insurance, the rights and protections your talking about are spelled right out in the actual policy itself. Out of the literally hundreds and hundreds of claims I have seen in my days working in the business that didn't work out as well as the policy holder would have liked...well, 99% of them were due to the policy holder not understanding their policy and what the limits were on that policy. The people that actually take the time to understand their policy and make sure they have a proper amount of coverage, for both the house and the contents as well, wind up faring FAR FAR better in the end. It really doesn't even matter if someone knowns their rights as a consumer or not. If someone buys a policy that doesn't give them a proper amount of coverage, those people are going to lose if they ever have a loss. No amount of knowledge on consumers rights is going to get someone past the fact that they had inadequate coverage. Again, those people will lose each and every time, regardless of their knowledge on consumers rights. In fact, if someone really is highly educated on consumers rights, then they should know first hand that they literally don't have any rights when it come to a loss that wasn't adequately covered/insured. 

As for the number of people that don't fully understand their policy, if I had to make an educated guess based on my years working in the business, I would estimate at least 80% of policy owners do not fully understand their policies and the limits on those policies. 

17 hours ago, F For Fake said:

Awesome! I always think it's so cool to find original art in the wild like that, instead of the usual auction houses and dealers. You just never know what is lurking in private collections. Very cool!

I personally consider estate sales the last true places where you can get amazing deals, which is why my wife and I hit up as many as possible. Regular auctions, be it online or at an auction house, are very difficult to get great deals at.