CBS MarketWatch: Collectibles Are "The Stupid Investment Of The Week"

[murph0]

I'm curious then. If you fully believe all of this and such. Why did you buy the original art to whatever GI Joe book it was? As a few have said on here after all "crash theorists" arguments that "we don't really care if the values crash because we're buying what we like". To which, I'm not sure if you said this too or not, others replied that you "can't be spending that kind of money and not be concerned about the future value (or lack of) for these". I don't see how your purchase was any different. Now I'm not saying you bought this for just investment, or that you even bought it as anything other than just because you like it (which I believe is a fully acceptable response). I'm just asking you, as a "crash theorist" would, why you then dumped a ton of money on this piece if you knew later on that it would be crashing?

On another subject, let me again reiterate my disliking for the current pricing of original comic art. 60,000 dollars for ASM 121 cover? Over 10,000 for an ASM 95 cover? C'mon!! I don't know about anyone else, but for those kind of prices I can get works from far more well (universally-wise) artists.

 

Brian

[THE_BEYONDER]

There was a serial in 1948 and 1950

pilot for tv show 1953

and the chris reeve version 1978

 

Thanks.

[Rocketeer]

here's a good link for that stuff

 

supes

[THE_BEYONDER]

[delekkerste]

Now I'm not saying you bought this for just investment, or that you even bought it as anything other than just because you like it (which I believe is a fully acceptable response). I'm just asking you, as a "crash theorist" would, why you then dumped a ton of money on this piece if you knew later on that it would be crashing?

 

1. It was not an investment. When I bought it, I subtracted the amount out of the "cash" portion of my portfolio and did not record an offsetting asset. I treated it as an expense item, pure and simple, valuing it at *zero* on my personal balance sheet.

 

2. I bought it because I liked it, pure and simple. And, because I had the discretionary funds available to do so. No payment plans, no lay-aways, no rolling credit card debt. While I think there are some prices that are simply outlandish, regardless of how much much money you have, I felt that the price paid for the Joe #21 artwork was both reasonable and well within my means. If you saw me trying to buy the ASM #121 original artwork for a few hundred grand, I would say that would be another matter entirely.

 

3. Still, all things considered, I agree that there are probably better places I could have put my money. But at the beginning and end of the day, I'm a collector first, with all the emotion and passion that entails, and a guy who write and comments on the comic market second.

 

 

On another subject, let me again reiterate my disliking for the current pricing of original comic art. 60,000 dollars for ASM 121 cover? Over 10,000 for an ASM 95 cover? C'mon!! I don't know about anyone else, but for those kind of prices I can get works from far more well (universally-wise) artists.

 

Well, I would agree with you there, which is why I plan to stay largely on the sidelines for awhile (though sometimes it's hard to given that there's only one of each piece out there). Not only is some comic art getting way overpriced relative to regular art, but at those kinds of prices, there's a lot of other stuff I'd rather buy first.

 

Gene

[murph0]

I was just trying to illustrate how the argument by crash theorists that those who don't mind seeing a crash, really do because of the money they've put into it. I would love to see a crash also as then I could complete many a set for cheaper. But as I said, people on here claim that, with anything you spend a lot on. You have to figure you're going to get at least your original money out of. Which I don't think is true. It'd be nice to do so, but that's not the only motivation for buying something. Anyways, that's why I don't buy all these people discounting the explanation of buying things you just like despite potential monetary loss.

I will definately be avoiding comic art. I'd love to own an original Romita Sr cover, but the cost is prohibitive. Not so much that it's too high to own, but it's too high to own for what you get. Original cover art for comics will always be a smaller segment, then some universal artwork. And because of that I would never pay the same price for a piece that is only valued by a tiny segment, as opposed to something that is enjoyed by a far larger segment. Now I'm not saying original covers should be worth a couple hundred dollars. I'm saying the non-important ones and others like that shouldn't command ridiculous prices like they currently and have done in the past. And definately not 60,000 dollars for something like a bronze cover. Maybe for a major major key.

 

Brian

[THE_BEYONDER]

And because of that I would never pay the same price for a piece that is only valued by a tiny segment, as opposed to something that is enjoyed by a far larger segment.

 

I would buy it because I like it. Who cares what anyone else thinks?

[Aman619]

60K for a Bronze cover???

my oh my thats pretty whacked to me.

But maybe whem inflation comes roaring back, it will seem like a bargain. Maybe Inflation, massive inflation over th enext ten years will be the savior of the market, since it will allow higher prices to be realized (above today's bubble levels) . I cant think of how they go higher any other way.....

 

I agree that the Hollywood infatuation with comics will pass as one after another doesnt score bigtime. But they'll come back after awhile.

Then again, the new film SFX technologies are making these action superhero films possible as never before....and comic book writers are now respected figures in Hollywood for their creativity, not just their comix works. AND the hollywood establishment (production and development teams) are well-versed in our comics stuff and many are fans and readers of comics.

 

So the future wont be as dim nor as prolonged as previous periods between Comics movies in the 80s and 90s were. And this time, we've got two 'studios' DC and Marvel at work. DCs coming wave of films if done well will come just as Marvels' is sputtering to a close and may keep it going lonf after it would have ceased.

[buena_vista]

 

Most people who bought comics in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s were not collectors, certainly not in the sense we define the word today. I don't consider the comic collecting hobby to really have gained traction until the 1970s with the emergence of Overstreet, comic cons and later in the decade the direct sales system and the introduction of storage materials like mylars. So no, I don't consider you to be part of the 4th generation of collectors and no, most GA collectors have not retired or died off yet.

 

Too much debt = reduced spending. Just ask the CEO of Wal-Mart who recently voiced his concerns. As for high-interest rates not affecting prices in the 1980s and 1990s, you had the greatest creation of wealth in recorded history, a secular, demographics-driven boom in comic prices (Baby Boomers coming into money and buying collectibles & other nostalgia items) and consumers embarking on a decade-long borrowing and spending binge, all of which countered the effect of high interest rates. Also, interest rates don't matter as much when you're buying a book for $200 in 1990. They start to matter when that $200 item now costs $20,000 in 2003 and you're already in debt up to your eyeballs with no savings to speak of like many Americans.

 

 

4. "It is extremely unlikely that comic-based movies will be as popular even 5 years from now as they have been the past few years." Now that's just impossible to predict.

 

No, it's impossible to predict with certainty, but it's not impossible to predict in all probability. I won't rehash the arguments that Joe_Collector and others have made in this regard, but suffice to say, if history is any guide, Hollywood will go overboard and the fad will eventually burn itself out. 5 years is probably enough time to do that, 10 years with almost absolute certainty.

 

 

Gene, I love the people who delve into economist theories. They simply contradict each other to the point of being absurd. If the CEO of WALMART says anything on the record, you can bet your week's salary he's doing it to get more people to invest in his company or buy from his store.

 

Here's your logic -- if people get into debt and have no savings, they will eventually spend less money.

 

The real scenario -- people will continue to use credit cards until the cows come home and the credit card companies + banks will encourage the cycle of debt -- not try to get people out of it. Don't believe me? Check out the Europeans and what percentage live on overdrafted bank accounts.

 

 

I also don't understand how you think high interest rates in the 80's & 90's contributed to the economic boom. It should have been just the opposite. If interest rates are low, then people are encouraged to borrow and spend the money on investments. That's what they're trying to do now (with questionable success). By your logic, people should have been encouraged to save more money in the 80's & 90's because they would get more return on their savings.

 

The movie logic is your guess -- but I feel that as long as comics are around, and the technology is there to bring them to life, they will be tapped as ideas for the next big thing.

 

Finally, how can you say that people who saved their comics in their parents attic were not collectors by our standards. You mean they didn't expect (or didn't care if)the comics are/would be worth anything? Right -- they weren't INVESTORS but they were collectors -- and that's the main issue here.

 

Don't buy comics just as investments --- it's not worth it. But there is no doubt in my mind that I am a 3rd or 4th generation collector -- and the Golden Age books that are found in those rare collections are snapped up for tens of thousands of dollars by people who can afford it. I don't think you'll see that change anytime soon.

[fantastic_four]

There was a serial in 1948 and 1950

pilot for tv show 1953

and the chris reeve version 1978

 

Superhero movies will be made on a regular basis long after we're all dead and gone. Tales of extraordinary feats performed by men are as old as man has had tools to create art; the part of our imagination that makes us enjoy superheroes has always been there and likely always will be. I expect superhero film production to increase steadily throughout our entire lifetimes as technology advances. It might burn out temporarily due to excessive productions costs while computer graphics cost $75 million or so to do superpowers justice, but their future is exceptionately bright as CGI hardware and software get better, cheaper, and more pervasive. Doing superheroes on film, TV, or via the Internet (not still-frame, but full-motion) cheaply and well are what will kill printed comic books, not video games. Interactive media isn't for everyone, and even those who enjoy it a lot still desire the passivity of narrative media from time to time.

 

One of the signs I've been looking for that the printed page is well on the way to permanent obsolescence is when teaching CGI techniques becomes so well-developed and cheap that it's taught in high school art classes. I tend to think we're a minimum of 20-30 years or more from that happening, but who knows...what ILM was able to achieve with Jurassic Park surprised the world, I'm sure there are a few more technology paradigm shifts to come in the upcoming decade.

[delekkerste]

But maybe whem inflation comes roaring back, it will seem like a bargain. Maybe Inflation, massive inflation over th enext ten years will be the savior of the market, since it will allow higher prices to be realized (above today's bubble levels) . I cant think of how they go higher any other way.....

 

I honestly can't think of any other way either. However, even if nominal prices soar due to strong inflation (not saying that's going to happen, but I don't discount the possibility), inflation-adjusted prices probably won't.

 

Gene

[PovertyRow]

But for many people, tzotchkes and knick-knacks, souvenirs and trinkets -- traditionally just a way to spend money -- have become perceived as an investment. And for the average person , that's a huge financial mistake.

 

I have enbolded the key behind this article, in my opinion. The "average person" doesn't know enough about ANY collectible market to be wise in it. We all must become experts to have any real idea of how the market works and what to do in it. And even then - no promises. If there were, then all the stock brokers and investment counselors would have been retired ages ago.

[Aman619]

thats another good point, POV.

I always wonder about all the market gurus spewing advice; If theyre so smart, home come theyre not retired, how come they're sharing their 'wisdom' with us? Because we pay for their advice? Why do they need the money? etc etc

[Rocketeer]

thats another good point, POV.

I always wonder about all the market gurus spewing advice; If theyre so smart, home come theyre not retired, how come they're sharing their 'wisdom' with us? Because we pay for their advice? Why do they need the money? etc etc

 

NPR did an experiment recently, they polled a bunch of traders after a declining day in the market in a local pub on wall st. and asked them why the market dropped that day.

 

There was a different answer for just about every person polled , and when the reporter asked them if they were sure of their answer the majority of them got indignant and defensive.

[delekkerste]

The real scenario -- people will continue to use credit cards until the cows come home and the credit card companies + banks will encourage the cycle of debt -- not try to get people out of it. Don't believe me?

 

No, you're wrong and I don't believe you but, rather than bore people with more open-economy macroeconomics, I will PM you with my response.

 

 

I also don't understand how you think high interest rates in the 80's & 90's contributed to the economic boom. It should have been just the opposite...By your logic, people should have been encouraged to save more money in the 80's & 90's because they would get more return on their savings.

 

Please show me where I said this? I said that comic prices rose in the 1980s and 1990s due to the secular bull market, in spite of, not because of higher interest rates.

 

 

Right -- they weren't INVESTORS but they were collectors -- and that's the main issue here.

 

No, that's not the main issue here. Your point was that my demographic argument was wrong because those old-time 1930s and 1940s collectors retired/died and GA prices didn't go down. My point is that what those old-timers did or didn't do with their comics is absolutely meaningless. Most of those comics didn't survive and many of those "collectors" forgot they even had any books. Those that did sell when they retired or when their heirs sold their estates either did so before comic prices really started taking off (pre-1980) or in an unprecedented time of prosperity for the world in the 1980s and 1990s which also coincided with the growth, development and maturation of the comic book hobby. During this time, the collector base was both growing and getting richer all the time, allowing for strong price increases in the face of these rather limited sales.

 

I'm not here to debate the definition of who is or isn't a collector. I'm here to say that your argument against my demographic theory is wrong because no, we have absolutely not yet faced a mass liquidation of the holdings of a generation of collectors in the past, and certainly not by the Baby Boomer generation who accumulated books and drove up prices to ludicrous extremes during the 1980s and 1990s. When this huge collector base tries to sell enormously appreciated assets into a shrinking collector base that has less money, the end result will be unprecedented and undeniable.

 

Gene

[PovertyRow]

thats another good point, POV.

I always wonder about all the market gurus spewing advice; If theyre so smart, home come theyre not retired, how come they're sharing their 'wisdom' with us? Because we pay for their advice? Why do they need the money? etc etc

 

NPR did an experiment recently, they polled a bunch of traders after a declining day in the market in a local pub on wall st. and asked them why the market dropped that day.

 

There was a different answer for just about every person polled , and when the reporter asked them if they were sure of their answer the majority of them got indignant and defensive.

 

There you go! One must really be a specialist nowadays and I don't believe most brokers or investment counselors are anywhere near being a specialist. Basically they are wholesale hacks and we all know what wholesale comics go for.

[Aman619]

When this huge collector base tries to sell enormously appreciated assets into a shrinking collector base that has less money, the end result will be unprecedented and undeniable.

 

Gene

 

This is always the most damning scenario that stops me in my tracks every time you post it. It just makes me want to run downstairs and sell it all...quick!

 

SO lets all put our heads together and poke holes in this argument until Gene backs off from the certainty of it until we can all sleep nights!!

 

Perhaps, enough of us wont sell because we dont WANT to or HAVE to sell . The argument presupposes that we Boomers WILL sell to cash out, and that we will NEED to sell. Perhaps those of us with sizable collections will choose to keep them in part because we have so much disposable cash to afford these books (even having bought them years ago for less $$$ but still lots of dough) This would limit the supply to only what CAN be absorbed by the marketplace, the younger 30 and 40 years olds who wont be selling for 20-30 years.

 

Maybe Gene's TIMING is off: There really arent THAT many copies of key SA and GA books in high grade. And these are the "enormously appreciated assets" in the argument. It just might be possible that ALL of the ones that come to market WILL be absorbed by it for quite some time to come, albeit with a little softening in the prices. Perhaps Gene's right but OFF by a generation. Its the Gen X and Y guys who will be left holding the bag when there arent enough of todays Modern collectors to move up to the nicer stuff???

[Illiterati-migration]

When this huge collector base tries to sell enormously appreciated assets into a shrinking collector base that has less money, the end result will be unprecedented and undeniable.

 

Gene

 

This is always the most damning scenario that stops me in my tracks every time you post it. It just makes me want to run downstairs and sell it all...quick!

 

SO lets all put our heads together and poke holes in this argument until Gene backs off from the certainty of it until we can all sleep nights!!

 

Perhaps, enough of us wont sell because we dont WANT to or HAVE to sell . The argument presupposes that we Boomers WILL sell to cash out, and that we will NEED to sell. Perhaps those of us with sizable collections will choose to keep them in part because we have so much disposable cash to afford these books (even having bought them years ago for less $$$ but still lots of dough) This would limit the supply to only what CAN be absorbed by the marketplace, the younger 30 and 40 years olds who wont be selling for 20-30 years.

 

Maybe Gene's TIMING is off: There really arent THAT many copies of key SA and GA books in high grade. And these are the "enormously appreciated assets" in the argument. It just might be possible that ALL of the ones that come to market WILL be absorbed by it for quite some time to come, albeit with a little softening in the prices. Perhaps Gene's right but OFF by a generation. Its the Gen X and Y guys who will be left holding the bag when there arent enough of todays Modern collectors to move up to the nicer stuff???

 

All that supposition is making me hungry.

[PovertyRow]

Perhaps, enough of us wont sell because we dont WANT to or HAVE to sell . The argument presupposes that we Boomers WILL sell to cash out, and that we will NEED to sell.

 

I think this is most applicable. How often do we see that "such and such" an age market is buying certain ages for "nostalgia" purposes. Well, I submit, if such books are bought for nostalgia (a very compelling thing that actually gets MORE compelling over time as society etc. gears itself AWAY from those nostalgic memories) - unles there is a genuine NEED - there will probably be no real compulsion to sell - in fact, as societal changes increase there may well be a compulsion for further self-examination and a branching off into other books from said age.

 

Because one thing I have noticed time and time again within my own self: when I get hooked on a particular age/genre combo (for example, precode (age) horror (genre) I invariably get hooked on other genres from the same age such as Crime/Romance etc.

[Aman619]

mmmmmm donuts.