Let's talk money

[sborock]

Bianchi and Finch are pikers compared to Art Adams. He had a new cover with a $35K price tag on it at San Diego this year. Now, it was a spectacular piece and I'm sure there's someone out there willing to pay it, but the sticker shock made me do a double-take. And then a triple-take.

 

:o

 

Did it come with a free Frazetta as well???

 

 

I picked up a great Art Adams cover on the Bay last night for under $2000

 

In this hobby, patience (usually) is virture (thumbs u

[Jesusjon]

I picked up a great Art Adams cover on the Bay last night for under $2000

 

Seriously, you'd better start more than doubling the price you picked it up for in your "outrageous asking price" if you want to hold onto it. At an asking price of $3K, I'm not sure you won't get someone to nab it away from you. Congrats!

 

J

[delekkerste]

In this hobby, patience (usually) is virture (thumbs u

 

And, sometimes, "patience is a virue" as well. Oh, snap!

 

I just looked at some of these Simone Bianchi covers online - some of these are really nice, but will enough people care in 15-20 years? Comparing the "hot" artists of today and their price appreciation potential vs. the Lees, McFarlanes and Liefelds of the late 1980s/early 1990s is a tenuous comparison at best in my view - those guys went on to sell hundreds of thousands of copies, even millions in some cases, of books a month and built huge, energized fan bases.

 

Also, whether you liked these artists or not, they were fresh, different and distinctive - innovative, even - at the time. I think David Finch, for example, is a good comic book artist, but I wouldn't give him any of those labels and he's certainly not developing the kind of fan base that a Lee or McFarlane built in their prime. Like it was mentioned above - how many people on this Board have even heard of a Simone Bianchi?

 

When today's hot artists start off charging $5k+ a pop for one of their covers, I have to wonder how many people (in a comic collecting population that is slowly aging and not being replenished in numbers) are even going to start collecting their work vs. acquiring more vintage material? Sure, some get away with it, but their longevity remains to be seen. I also think that most OA in the digital era has become inherently less desirable and collectible than in the old days with full lettering, logos, notations, etc. - we can debate this to death but I'm sure most collectors would agree. Just look at how (relatively) little "key" pages from storylines and hot titles from this decade fetch given how decompressed and incomplete most of them look. Only the best covers and splashes which can stand alone really get anybody jazzed these days.

 

It'll be interesting to see in 15 years whether paying these kinds of prices for today's hot artists makes sense...as much as I like the work of, say, James Jean, I'm not sure I want to gamble on paying these kinds of prices for someone who would probably just be a footnote in comic history if he got hit by a bus tomorrow...he'd probably be about as remembered as a Vaughn Bode at best and priced accordingly.

[jbud73]

In OA it seems to be a very amplified (buy what you like) vs. exhibit patience.

 

The amplification of buy what you like occurs as you may not get a shot again - the O in Original Art.

 

The amplification of the patience comes with the fact that instead of shelling out $100 for the alternate cover,limited edition, pencil sketch, special wizard only, RRP retailer, foil cover, CGC 9.8. You are shelling out 2-5K for a cover that has not even been published yet, but is set to be published.

 

So the cost benefit is definitely steeper.

 

So you have to think of it in your own personal OA terms. I think about everything in terms of what I like IE Perez Art. So if Finch's new cover is 4K, so what does that get me into in terms of Perez Art. Well it gets me into a late NTT cover and to me the latter is far more attractive than the former. If the Finch cover is 1.5 K well that might only get me into a splash page, so then maybe it is work it if the depiction and character featured in something that appeals to me. I think that is what Gene is asserting when he says "did it come with a Frazetta oil"

 

 

 

[Artemaria]

What does that Finch piece have to be worth in twenty years to make the amount paid worth it, if the buyer plans on or even entertains ever reselling? 30-40-50k? Lotsa luck jack.

 

In light of the issues thoroughly vetted on this board, this becomes the germane question.

 

Whether a piece will cross an arbitrary numerical plateau will depend on many factors some of which have nothing to do with comic art (time, the value of the dollar, etc.). For example, if there is rampant inflation, then we may be buying Herb Trimpe panel pages for $35K (however, I really hope the economy does not go there).

 

There are also other great points, many of which were made by Gene/Deli, and the other posters who note, amongst other things, that the value of a piece depends heavily on the collector. While I'd like a Paul Smith X-men page, I wouldn't pay the nearly $3K that one went for on eBay a few months back. I'd rather pay double for a Byrne page (but at these valuations, I won't be buying either for a while).

 

As people noted, when the aging population that is in this hobby stops collecting, other than Kirby and Ditko and some early DC stuff, which might be considered to have intrinsic historical value, then what value would a Bianchi cover have? He did not create the X-men or the Hulk or Spiderman or what not? Are the stories these days that are so good that they will be remembered seemingly forever, like the Dark Phoenix Saga? I don't think so.

 

Sure modern comics will be reprinted once in trade format (it seems like everything makes it to the trade format these days), but will they be reprinted half a dozen times over thirty years, like the Marshall Rogers 1970s Detective run? Or will they be reprinted constantly, like Watchmen? Again, I think not.

 

From what I can see, there are some criteria that tend to lend an objective type of value to comic OA. The other posters have identified some of these factors by noting an artist's impact in the industry, the following, the impact in comic history generally, the impact of a particular storyline, etc. To me, a modern Art Adams cover from a modern non-historical, non-meaningful series, while really spectactular and great to look at, meets none of these criteria.

 

The only point that I'm making, and which seems to have also been made by other is that, over time, a modern piece may not be as sound a financial endeavor as, for example, whatever you can buy by Kirby for that kind of money.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

- A

 

[Bronty]

What does that Finch piece have to be worth in twenty years to make the amount paid worth it, if the buyer plans on or even entertains ever reselling? 30-40-50k? Lotsa luck jack.

 

For example, if there is rampant inflation, then we may be buying Herb Trimpe panel pages for $35K (however, I really hope the economy does not go there).

 

But that doesn't really affect the math because then in real terms the value of your initial investment is higher as well. In other words it would have to be 100k or insert whatever post-inflation number you want.

[Bronty]

What does that Finch piece have to be worth in twenty years to make the amount paid worth it, if the buyer plans on or even entertains ever reselling? 30-40-50k? Lotsa luck jack.

 

To me, a modern Art Adams cover from a modern non-historical, non-meaningful series, while really spectactular and great to look at, meets none of these criteria.

 

The only point that I'm making, and which seems to have also been made by other is that, over time, a modern piece may not be as sound a financial endeavor as, for example, whatever you can buy by Kirby for that kind of money.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

- A

 

Amen.

[sborock]

Another thing we have to remember about our hobby, is that "we covet what we know". We seem to love what we grew up with.

 

I see this all the time. The Bronze age books/art got hot when my age group started making disposable income.

 

I remember when big dealers and collectors were telling me that AF 15 was a very bad investment during the early 70's.

 

I usually see a 25 year swing on many things.

 

Just another thing to consider.

 

And, as always, I just buy what I like and can afford. That way, I enjoy my collection and sometimes make a little profit when I sell/trade. The "art of the deal/thrill of the hunt" is also some of the fun in our hobby.

[Bronty]

Another thing we have to remember about our hobby, is that "we covet what we know". We seem to love what we grew up with.

 

But my whole point is your point in reverse. With readership so low who is going to know and covet any of this stuff enough to justify the initial investment?

 

Of course your advice to buy what you like, etc etc is spot on. It's always said and always true. I'd just rather buy something I like with upside than no upside

[Sharkey]

I don't know Steve, I think only if you are talking twice up. That would get you a pretty killer small art Kirby/Sinnott FF page.... still vintage, still great!

 

good point, I'm definitely thinking twice-up... (thumbs u

[dkao-migration]

I guess as an OA collector you always have to weigh "buying as an investment" vs "buying because you like it". I think the investment aspect is always part of the decision when buying art, just in lesser or greater degree for different people. If you really like the Bianchi covers and have 6k for a cool batman cover, more power to you. You probably wouldn't really care that much if price does depreciate in a few years.

 

It just sucks for the people who is 50/50 on the investment/enjoyment scale like me. I personally would be glad if the pieces I have stay at its present value.

[otherworldsj33]

I recently paid 4K for a Wagner Batman cover. A little much, but not insane crazy.

[coollinesartwork]

It helped Steve get the Art Adams cover for a good price because the artwork (full of the key Wildstorm teams) was not fully described.

 

Stephen

[Bronty]

 

It just sucks for the people who is 50/50 on the investment/enjoyment scale like me. I personally would be glad if the pieces I have stay at its present value.

 

That's all I'm looking for too. I'm in this to have fun not get rich but I don't want to lose money either. Some kind of resale value is nice.

[AuburnTiger]

From what I can see, there are some criteria that tend to lend an objective type of value to comic OA. The other posters have identified some of these factors by noting an artist's impact in the industry, the following, the impact in comic history generally, the impact of a particular storyline, etc. To me, a modern Art Adams cover from a modern non-historical, non-meaningful series, while really spectactular and great to look at, meets none of these criteria.

 

The only point that I'm making, and which seems to have also been made by other is that, over time, a modern piece may not be as sound a financial endeavor as, for example, whatever you can buy by Kirby for that kind of money.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

- A

 

Who's to determine what is meaningful? I'm quite young compared to most of the collectors here, and am also quite new to OA. I personally find a lot of meaning in newer and modern stories.

[Artemaria]

Hey Auburn -

 

That's a fair point. My response may repeat some of the points made by the other members (my apologies for being repetitive).

 

Your position echoes of the "buy what you know" point that someone else made earlier on the threads. As that person pointed out, the prices for Bronze Age Marvel OA went up as the fans of those stories grew older and had more disposable income. In the same vein, there is the possibility that the stories that you and others, including myself, are reading now, will be meaningful and will resonate and have some kind of historical value. But that is unknown at this time.

 

The concern about current OA holding its value comes from a couple of sources. One, the readership of comics is at a fairly low point considering historical trends. Rather than millions of readers (e.g.: Superman in the 1940s or Jim Lee's X-Men #1), a hit book will sell over 100,000 copies. Thus, even if 1% of those 100K become OA collectors (and I suspect that the rate is far lower), that's only 1,000 people who would be interested in that OA piece. Many will be eliminated because of collecting interest, money, etc. If you are interested in maintaining valuation, you would be happier if the book sold 1 million copies, because then you could have 10K potential customers (although again, there would be some elimination). Thus, based on readership that would create a potential collecting pool, there is a concern about modern OA holding its value.

 

Two, the stories today are meaningful, but (and I don't think I'm alone in thinking this), if you've been reading comics for awhile (and I mean decades, not years), then you will see that a very very large proportion of mainstream comics stories today are derivative in some way from other prior runs. For example, the run of Frank Miller changed Daredevil forever. Nothing since then has changed DD as much (it's not even close). There have been good stories, but all of these have taken place in the framework that Frank Miller created. This is why a Frank Miller DD page will go for alot more than an Alex Maaleev DD page from the very good recent Bendis run (which I really liked, I really did). Brubaker is a good DD writer as well, but historically, he has not created a universe for DD like Miller did. Collectors seem to value more the OA that is from the original great memorable story, not a derivative version. DD is one example, but there are others (the initial great Dark Phoenix saga vs. the various returns of Phoenix, etc.).

 

Three, and this is something that may weigh more than the others, the value of the initial creator's artwork is highly valued and has historical significance. Collectors like the art that is associated with the person who created the character, the look and feel of that character and the universe around that character. That is why a Steve Ditko Spidey page will go for more than a Mark Bagley Spidey page although some might argue that Mark is a more visually pleasing artist than Steve. The Ditko pages have historical value because they were part of the creation process and thus are, in many people's eyes, more meaningful. As a result, many collectors feel that those are the most valuable pages and have and will continue to pay accordingly.

 

So, as you can see, there are many different reasons (from a strictly financial perspective) why some people feel uncertainty about plunking down $5 - $35 K for a fairly recent piece.

 

However, the maxim, repeated ad naseum here, holds very true. Buy what you like. Thus, you will not find yourself looking at a Kirby page that you hate (and I have to admit, the King did produce a couple of clunkers), and wondering why you bought it, and then possibly getting rooked by someone when you sell it, which would make you feel even worse about the whole process.

 

If you buy what you like, then the art can be its own reward.

 

Best regards and good luck collecting!

 

- A

[sborock]

"If you buy what you like, then the art can be its own reward.

 

Best regards and good luck collecting!"

 

Okay boys and girls, say this over and over, again and again. You will enjoy life a whole lot more! (thumbs u

 

[AuburnTiger]

Great post, Artemaria. I suppose I just took issue with you using "unmeaningful." I tend to try and buy art from stories I have a certain connection to. I don't really think in terms of whether or not this piece will hold its value. The closest I come to that is thinking, perhaps I will be able to trade this piece later on for one I want even more.

 

While those Ditko Spidey pages and Kirby pages are nice, I really have no connection with the stories. In absolutely honesty, I would pay much, much more for a Rags Morales page than for a Ditko page. It all comes down to what I emotionally connect with.

[Mighty Hal]

That's true, Auburn Tiger. We buy what we love and we'll pay more for it. Sometimes much, much more. Because of that, I'd pay more for a Ditko page than something by Morales -- and this is being typed by someone who owns a nice piece of Morales art but (tears) has nothing by Ditko.

 

If somebody connects with the Batman #653 storyline, then they may well pay for the Bianchi cover. If you love New X-Men #44, you may be wondering how quickly you can charge the Finch piece. $35K for the Art Adams mega-cover? Well, in that case, I think you gotta love Marvel and Art Adams. But if you don't love the storyline or the characters, regardless of the artist, I think you're foolish to buy the artwork solely as a potential investment.

 

Example: Jim Lee is a huge Fan Favorite. (Ah, how I love that term.) With a minimum of searching, I've found three Jim Lee OA covers for sell, all under a grand. Nothing X-Men, nothing Batman, but original Jim Lee covers. For sell, relatively cheap, because most of us don't care about the comic books that he was working on at that time.

 

Now...does anybody know what publishers today pay their artists?

 

 

[AuburnTiger]

Sorry to stray off topic, but what Morales page do you own? I'm a huge fan!