Owning a King's Ransom in Art and Living Like a Pauper

[Bronty]

for most people the $1-2 m from crippen is a game changer. Not russian plutarch riches, no, but enough to live comfortably without worries although not extravagantly. Enough that you could move out of a hovel if you were in one, and go to a nice home debt free.

[*paull*]

I think the psychology of collecting is a very interesting and complex subject that is discussed far less frequently than it ought to be. The most eye opening reference I have seen is Nicholas Basbanes' "A Gentle Madness" and to a lesser extent "Patience and Fortitude".

 

To me, the fraction of your net worth that is made up of comics/OA is less interesting than the underlying reasons people spend what they do on comics. I know people who fit the description that delekkerste mentions. Some are very smart and successful bibliophiles who deliberately have chosen an alternative lifestyle that goes against the mainstream. The other extreme is bibliomania: "an obsessive-compulsive disorder involving the collecting of books to the point where social relations or health are damaged" (wikipedia). Most people who put a significant amount of their income into collectibles fit somewhere on this spectrum. Delekkerste's "pauper" is not a stereotype but rather a broad category of collectors. Some I admire, some I feel sorry for.

 

My own experience is that things start to get uncomfortable when collectors talk more about money and profits than they do about the actual collectibles. This has been a key factor that has eroded my own sense of bonding with the CGC board community in general: I see an awful lot of talk about money and blind admiration for people who are able to spend it. I think that is plain sad. The collectors that I have formed friendships with are all fairly rounded individuals who have successful careers and just happen to love comics and/or art as a fun hobby. A few of these people are "paupers" while most are "kings". Some are wealthy "paupers" and some are solid middle class income "kings". If anything, I respect the paupers more because they have had the courage and self-confidence to adopt a controversial lifestyle that makes them happy instead of being part in the consumer culture that all of us are taught is "nomal". On the other hand, I could never see myself enjoying any association with a bibliomaniac. If you have read "A Gentle Madness", you should know what I mean by this distinction.

 

Thanks for an interesting thread.

 

This is a very interesting and well-composed post. I agree with you completely... once the collection becomes about the money and not the love for the art (whether it's a book, artwork, record, antique, etc.), it's time to sell. In fact, I own a few collections that would not be easy to liquidate. I collect records from Japan, for instance, and they would be very difficult for me to sell directly to a collector... I would probably have to involve a third party in order to liquidate them. But I have no plans for that, and realize that I would probably lose a bit of money having to consign them though a third party. I enjoy the records that much and they aren't going anywhere.

 

It makes me cringe a bit when I see collectors focused on "accumulating" or "monetary value" more than actually enjoying the art and celebrating the artist.

 

[*paull*]

most notably the Davis Crippen books (although granted there didn't seem to be many major keys in there).

 

I'll take the Crippen Suspense 3! That is some book...

[Mephisto]

most notably the Davis Crippen books (although granted there didn't seem to be many major keys in there).

 

I'll take the Crippen Suspense 3! That is some book...

 

And there were some nice books that left that collection that were sold to Metro years earlier.

[delekkerste]

What were the total proceeds of the Crippen books, $1-2 million? A nice windfall for his heirs, but not really a game-changer, particularly after taxes.

 

Even taking the Martignette collection as an example of one of the best collections of illustrated art, what are the total proceeds from everything that's sold so far, and how much more is left? Is it an amount that would really move the needle?

 

Tim, did you pack up and move to Monaco recently? Even here in NYC, $1-2 million is a "game-changer" for all but a very small percentage of people and would certainly "move the needle" for even many of those.

 

Most people wouldn't need anywhere near 7-figures to meaningfully upgrade their quality of life. If you plotted a curve of "quality of life improvement" per incremental $ spent (in this case, money from liquidating comics/OA or from diverting hobby spending into other spending), it would be very steep and wouldn't flatten out much for most people over the range of most collection values. I guess, though, that the dissatisfaction per incremental $ divested for many in the collecting community might be even greater than the potential quality of life improvement. Either that, or much of the money that goes into the hobby isn't truly discretionary (it acts as a surrogate savings/investment vehicle for some) and so those collectors would be unable to make the trade-off I am talking about.

 

This reminds me of a buddy who got divorced and ended up with basically nothing but his collection. He had a firm offer to cash out for a healthy sum (low 6-figures) to help him get back on his feet, but couldn't pull the trigger and went to live in conditions not befitting someone out of college, let alone someone with a 6-figure collectibles collection. Would that amount of money have been a "game-changer" that "moved the needle"? You betcha it would have. I recently heard that he's been raising some cash through sales, thank goodness.

 

But, you don't even have to take the example of someone down on his luck to prove the point. I can even look to my own example. I am certainly farther up on the trade-off curve than my divorced buddy above, so I'm not going to get the same bang for the buck as he would. But, would diverting the $$$ from my annual hobby expenditures (let alone liquidating some/all of my collection) to my already non-miserly expenditures outside of the hobby make a quality of life difference? Of course it would, who's life here wouldn't be improved if they had an extra $X thousand that they had to spend every year on non-collectibles stuff (I always take care of my savings/investments first and foremost, so I am making the argument that any money that would be saved from not buying or liquidating collectibles would be freely available to be spent). Would it be a "game-changer" for me? No, but it would be a hell of a lot of fun having that pile of money to spend above and beyond what I do already. I'm sure I could find some good uses for it.

 

To say that an incremental $100K or $200K wouldn't move the needle (let alone $1 to $2 million) would be falling into the same logic trap that people do when arguing against oil drilling (e.g., "oh, all the oil there would only add 0.3% to the world reserves"). Ah, yes, but it would be enough to meet the incremental demand for many, many years to come (to make a simplified argument). Similarly, adding $100K-$200K of incrementally available spending dollars to most budgets would meaningfully improve all but a few collectors' quality of life, no doubt about it. One could even afford to be a little extravagant if they chose to.

[Nexus]

I see an awful lot of talk about money and blind admiration for people who are able to spend it. I think that is plain sad.

 

Not only sad, but pathetic. It happens here all the time. People are conferred instant credibility just because of what they own, as if the act of spending large amounts of money in accumulating art is, in and of itself, some kind of noble achievement. Hell, there are collectors who believe that of themselves.

 

Show off a shiny new object and the sheeple suddenly lose all ability to think critically. They all want to be invited to the party. They all want to be the owner's friend based on what they have versus who they are.

 

And those are just the easily duped. Then you have the ones who are smart enough to see what's going on, but choose to remain silent for fear of offending the establishment. There used to be a boardie here whose sig line was "if no one else will bring it up, I will". What happened to that guy?

 

Seems to me that's a major difference between comics collectors and OA collectors. Jason Ewert and Danny Dupcak chose the wrong hobby. If they were in OA, they'd be welcome to the party so long as they had nice art, no matter what else they did.

[dem1138]

There used to be a boardie here whose sig line was "if no one else will bring it up, I will". What happened to that guy?

 

Ouch, Felix. That guy was and is me. Always was and always will be. However, I no longer see the value in sharing other peoples private information publicly on these boards. Especially seeing how far and how often many of these threads have fallen. You and I have had many spirited discussions on the phone, via e-mail, and in person -- and I would always be more than happy to continue that privately. And that goes for any and all of the collectors with whom I have truly had the privilege of getting to know over the years who have shared both their time and their collections with me.

 

I have no desire to be dragged into one of these threads though.

[tth2]

most notably the Davis Crippen books (although granted there didn't seem to be many major keys in there).

 

I'll take the Crippen Suspense 3! That is some book...

 

And there were some nice books that left that collection that were sold to Metro years earlier.

Yes, but the Crippen family didn't get any of that money.

[tth2]

What were the total proceeds of the Crippen books, $1-2 million? A nice windfall for his heirs, but not really a game-changer, particularly after taxes.

 

Even taking the Martignette collection as an example of one of the best collections of illustrated art, what are the total proceeds from everything that's sold so far, and how much more is left? Is it an amount that would really move the needle?

 

Tim, did you pack up and move to Monaco recently? Even here in NYC, $1-2 million is a "game-changer" for all but a very small percentage of people and would certainly "move the needle" for even many of those.

 

Most people wouldn't need anywhere near 7-figures to meaningfully upgrade their quality of life. If you plotted a curve of "quality of life improvement" per incremental $ spent (in this case, money from liquidating comics/OA or from diverting hobby spending into other spending), it would be very steep and wouldn't flatten out much for most people over the range of most collection values. I guess, though, that the dissatisfaction per incremental $ divested for many in the collecting community might be even greater than the potential quality of life improvement. Either that, or much of the money that goes into the hobby isn't truly discretionary (it acts as a surrogate savings/investment vehicle for some) and so those collectors would be unable to make the trade-off I am talking about.

 

This reminds me of a buddy who got divorced and ended up with basically nothing but his collection. He had a firm offer to cash out for a healthy sum (low 6-figures) to help him get back on his feet, but couldn't pull the trigger and went to live in conditions not befitting someone out of college, let alone someone with a 6-figure collectibles collection. Would that amount of money have been a "game-changer" that "moved the needle"? You betcha it would have. I recently heard that he's been raising some cash through sales, thank goodness.

 

But, you don't even have to take the example of someone down on his luck to prove the point. I can even look to my own example. I am certainly farther up on the trade-off curve than my divorced buddy above, so I'm not going to get the same bang for the buck as he would. But, would diverting the $$$ from my annual hobby expenditures (let alone liquidating some/all of my collection) to my already non-miserly expenditures outside of the hobby make a quality of life difference? Of course it would, who's life here wouldn't be improved if they had an extra $X thousand that they had to spend every year on non-collectibles stuff (I always take care of my savings/investments first and foremost, so I am making the argument that any money that would be saved from not buying or liquidating collectibles would be freely available to be spent). Would it be a "game-changer" for me? No, but it would be a hell of a lot of fun having that pile of money to spend above and beyond what I do already. I'm sure I could find some good uses for it.

 

To say that an incremental $100K or $200K wouldn't move the needle (let alone $1 to $2 million) would be falling into the same logic trap that people do when arguing against oil drilling (e.g., "oh, all the oil there would only add 0.3% to the world reserves"). Ah, yes, but it would be enough to meet the incremental demand for many, many years to come (to make a simplified argument). Similarly, adding $100K-$200K of incrementally available spending dollars to most budgets would meaningfully improve all but a few collectors' quality of life, no doubt about it. One could even afford to be a little extravagant if they chose to.

I guess I was reading your question differently than the way you (and everyone else!) was reading it. I thought you were asking whether the divestment of a collection would result in a person basically being able to never work again and spending the rest of their life in the lap of luxury, rather than just incremental improvements.

[comicartcom]

$1,000,000 to 95% of the population is serious money that they would never otherwise see. Collectors generally are people representative of the population as a whole in relation to income levels and so most people - 19 out of 20 - would think they just hit the lottery if they made $1mil

 

smartly invested (I know, difficult in these times) at even the bottom of interest income or stock dividends would create about $50,000 a year in income. While that would be a paycut to myself and to many on these boards, to most others it would be a totally life changing experience and in good years, it would produce a higher return and that's just $1mil. $2,0000,000 or more would essentially allow anyone to retire as long as they don't have an interest in owning a Lambourgini Diablo, a yacht or a second home in Paris

 

of course, the biggest problem with most collections: they lack the pedigree status, the high quality needed or the singularly incredible item that boosts the overall value into the needed financial arena to achieve the millions

 

then add the fact that if you have a high quality collection worth $2mil, a collector would have to accept something in the range of 40-60% on a fast cash sale, or have to sell it over a long period on their own to achieve a fuller value. Even if Heritage sells the collection at a lowered seller fee, you aren't likely to achieve much better and to make things worse, there are really only a few who can afford to buy your collection outright without sharing with other dealers. Fishler, Geppi (who may not be available at the moment) and Heritage being the obvious candidates. The further you move away from those who can afford it, the lower your expectation gets.

 

but back to the main crux of this.. $1-2mil is a total life changer for 95% of the population

[Mephisto]

most notably the Davis Crippen books (although granted there didn't seem to be many major keys in there).

 

I'll take the Crippen Suspense 3! That is some book...

 

And there were some nice books that left that collection that were sold to Metro years earlier.

Yes, but the Crippen family didn't get any of that money.

 

Um yeah but I was pointing to the fact that a lot of nice books were already missing from the collection when Heritage got the remainder.

[Nexus]

The question remains, though - we all know some people who have valuable art/collectibles collections but who do not have outsized incomes or live extravagantly. I can say flat-out - if I was one of those people who won the "OA lottery" and didn't have a lot of disposable income otherwise, I would sell off as much as I needed to improve my lifestyle. I know a lot of people who don't need/want nice clothes, meals, electronics, cars, vacations, homes, jewelry, etc. and/or who just love comics too much to ever make that trade-off. I am not one of those people, though.

 

Does anyone know somebody who has cashed in on their good fortune in the comics/OA market, sold off their collections and gone on to live the high life (or maybe used that money to make a significant purchase like a house, or start a new business or something like that)?

 

when I moved out to Vegas in 1993 I stopped buying art for my collection which was massive huge. I sold from and lived on that collection for 10 years (and continue to) and from 1993 - 2000 I did almost no work at all, partied Vegas style, dated many many babes (I like c ocktail waitresses alot) and every last bit was paid for by my art collection, or poker winnings

 

Then I changed directions and started adding again to my movie poster collection and stopped selling comics & art for the most part while focusing on what eventually became my movie poster auction website where I have a weekly auction. For interested souls www.movieposterbid.com

 

Of course, the fact that buying art collections has become near impossible due to Heritage, fleaBay and the re-orientation from older material to Bronze and newer which I have never had any interest except for very small areas was a major factor in "moving on". But yes .. I lived the high life and paid for it with art.. What fun it was.

 

When you made the decision to start cashing out in 1993, was part of the reason because you thought that OA had gone as far as it could go, market value-wise?

 

Or, to put it another way...had you to do it all over again, would you still have sold off all your art, despite knowing the astronomical leaps in value OA has made since that time?

 

Outside of strips (see: POGO), every other category of comic art has gone nuts since the 90's near as I can tell.

 

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. I'm the opposite...even if I knew for certain that OA was going to crash and my collection would have negligible cash value, I still don't think I'd sell it. The collection means a lot to me, more than the monetary value.

 

Having said that, if I really needed the money, say for a family emergency, it all goes.

 

But I'd never sell it to get a bigger house, drive a nicer car, or as I'm heterosexual, buy myself jewelry

 

 

 

[Nexus]

I'll also add that you would have never won the "OA lottery", Gene, because it's clear that OA is a low priority for you. At any given time, there's a laundry list of other stuff you'd rather spend your money on. Yes, OA was "cheap" in the past compared to its current valuation. But I don't think those who were not passionate about the hobby could have justified the prices to themselves even back then.

 

The people who spend the money in the hobby do so partly out of a leap-of-faith, but mostly (at least for the majority of us I'd wager) out of obsession. I'd guess that's always been true, for better or worse.

 

That's also why so few would choose to cash out to "improve" their life...art is their life!

[tth2]

Yes, OA was "cheap" in the past compared to its current valuation. But I don't think those who were not passionate about the hobby could have justified the prices to themselves even back then.

 

The people who spend the money in the hobby do so partly out of a leap-of-faith, but mostly (at least for the majority of us I'd wager) out of obsession. I'd guess that's always been true, for better or worse.

 

That's also why so few would choose to cash out to "improve" their life...art is their life!

Spot on, Felix.

[jjonahjameson1]

Yes, OA was "cheap" in the past compared to its current valuation. But I don't think those who were not passionate about the hobby could have justified the prices to themselves even back then.

 

The people who spend the money in the hobby do so partly out of a leap-of-faith, but mostly (at least for the majority of us I'd wager) out of obsession. I'd guess that's always been true, for better or worse.

 

That's also why so few would choose to cash out to "improve" their life...art is their life!

Spot on, Felix.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

To me, at the end of the day, it is ink on paper.

 

If the opportunity and timing present itself to purchase a 'nicer' home or pay for University tuition, etc. then I will sell the art with no qualms whatsoever.

[Nexus]

Yes, OA was "cheap" in the past compared to its current valuation. But I don't think those who were not passionate about the hobby could have justified the prices to themselves even back then.

 

The people who spend the money in the hobby do so partly out of a leap-of-faith, but mostly (at least for the majority of us I'd wager) out of obsession. I'd guess that's always been true, for better or worse.

 

That's also why so few would choose to cash out to "improve" their life...art is their life!

Spot on, Felix.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

To me, at the end of the day, it is ink on paper.

 

If the opportunity and timing present itself to purchase a 'nicer' home or pay for University tuition, etc. then I will sell the art with no qualms whatsoever.

 

I have no doubt you really mean this, Yoram. But even if the opportunity to sell the art didn't present itself, wouldn't it also make sense, if it's all just "ink on paper", to stop collecting now and SAVE the money towards a nicer home, university tuition, etc.? And based on your regular wantlist posts (as well as your sig line), it would seem you're still actively/aggressively collecting/buying?

[delekkerste]

I'll also add that you would have never won the "OA lottery", Gene, because it's clear that OA is a low priority for you. At any given time, there's a laundry list of other stuff you'd rather spend your money on. Yes, OA was "cheap" in the past compared to its current valuation. But I don't think those who were not passionate about the hobby could have justified the prices to themselves even back then.

 

The people who spend the money in the hobby do so partly out of a leap-of-faith, but mostly (at least for the majority of us I'd wager) out of obsession. I'd guess that's always been true, for better or worse.

 

That's also why so few would choose to cash out to "improve" their life...art is their life!

 

I was having a similar conversation with Emilio last week and fully conceded as much. I certainly wouldn't have been the guy buying the big covers and such back in the day, even at a small fraction of today's prices. I am a saver by nature, and as I didn't have my financial future secured back when OA prices were really inexpensive, fiscal prudence would have always won out.

 

That said, if one was in the right place at the right time in the OA market, you couldn't help but do well to some extent. Hitting a small jackpot in the OA lottery as it were. That's been true even for those of us (myself included) who started collecting before things went totally bonkers for the few years leading up to 2008.

 

I also wouldn't say that "low priority" is a fair characterization for my interest in OA. But, it's fair to say that I have a lot of other interests (not all of which are as $$$-intensive as OA collecting), of which comics/art is but one. It is certainly not "my life" nor what defines me by any stretch (and nor would I ever want it to be). As such, there are certain levels of fiscal prudence/sanity that I would not cross and I certainly would never compromise my ethical standards for this hobby as some obsessives have been wont to do.

[Nexus]

I was having a similar conversation with Emilio last week and fully conceded as much. I certainly wouldn't have been the guy buying the big covers and such back in the day, even at a small fraction of today's prices. I am a saver by nature, and as I didn't have my financial future secured back when OA prices were really inexpensive, fiscal prudence would have always won out.

 

That's all I was saying. To win any lottery, you've got to at least buy a ticket first.

 

That said, if one was in the right place at the right time in the OA market, you couldn't help but do well to some extent. Hitting a small jackpot in the OA lottery as it were. That's been true even for those of us (myself included) who started collecting before things went totally bonkers for the few years leading up to 2008.

 

It would seem, then, that anytime leading up to 2008 was the "right place, right time". The run-up in values has been illogical, seemingly immune to all outside factors, just plain mind-boggling. Common sense would say it can't last forever. But, as this thread indicates, there's not a whole lot of common sense when it comes to this hobby. For better or worse.

 

I also wouldn't say that "low priority" is a fair characterization for my interest in OA.

 

You put it behind "nice clothes, meals, electronics, cars, vacations, homes, jewelry, etc.", so I just took that to mean it was low on the shopping list. Although I suppose it's all relative...just how long is your list, Gene??!!

 

But, it's fair to say that I have a lot of other interests (not all of which are as $$$-intensive as OA collecting), of which comics/art is but one. It is certainly not "my life" nor what defines me by any stretch (and nor would I ever want it to be). As such, there are certain levels of fiscal prudence/sanity that I would not cross and I certainly would never compromise my ethical standards for this hobby as some obsessives have been wont to do.

 

(thumbs u

[delekkerste]

You put it behind "nice clothes, meals, electronics, cars, vacations, homes, jewelry, etc.", so I just took that to mean it was low on the shopping list. Although I suppose it's all relative...just how long is your list, Gene??!!

 

And here I was, just talking about the essentials.

 

 

But I'd never sell it to get a bigger house, drive a nicer car, or as I'm heterosexual, buy myself jewelry

 

Hey, don't knock the bling, fool!

[jjonahjameson1]

Yes, OA was "cheap" in the past compared to its current valuation. But I don't think those who were not passionate about the hobby could have justified the prices to themselves even back then.

 

The people who spend the money in the hobby do so partly out of a leap-of-faith, but mostly (at least for the majority of us I'd wager) out of obsession. I'd guess that's always been true, for better or worse.

 

That's also why so few would choose to cash out to "improve" their life...art is their life!

Spot on, Felix.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

To me, at the end of the day, it is ink on paper.

 

If the opportunity and timing present itself to purchase a 'nicer' home or pay for University tuition, etc. then I will sell the art with no qualms whatsoever.

 

I have no doubt you really mean this, Yoram. But even if the opportunity to sell the art didn't present itself, wouldn't it also make sense, if it's all just "ink on paper", to stop collecting now and SAVE the money towards a nicer home, university tuition, etc.? And based on your regular wantlist posts (as well as your sig line), it would seem you're still actively/aggressively collecting/buying?

 

Hi, Felix. I'd be happy to speak to you about the details offline, but I did stop collecting for a good portion of last year, and in regard to actively/aggressively collecting/buying, I think our definitions thereof are different.