What's the most you've spent on one piece of art (cash!)?

[*paull*]

I'm curious about what was modified on the SS covers.

[westform]

A slightly sideways but not OT story regarding SS covers that Felix will have to 'felixurl' I'm sure.... Years ago, like dark ages... I answered a post in the CBG. Collector in Florida had several Buscema SS pages for sale. I called him and we discussed it; I also found out he had the covers to 1 and 2... *Gulp!*. We went back and forth, he was a really nice guy, and had almost agreed on 11k for the number 1. The 2 was about half the price but had alot of cut and paste and whitout work on it. Problem was he wanted cash, I was pretty new to the hobby and we could figure out how to exchange money get the piece to me, etc. These details were not as easy as they are today. Basically, it came to me having to get on a plane and meet him down there. I balked...*gulp!*, and instead bought about 7 or 8 primo panel pages from him that he was willing to mail me, at an amount that didn't have me sweating losing such an amount if he never came through. I think they were about $150 apiece... or thereabouts. Did I say primo... Anyway, you know the rest of the story about where the 1 and 2 are now and their worth.... but a year or two later I was able to turn those pages and a few other things into the SS12 cover. Love it.... But, ahhhh, what might have been.

[westform]

Oh, by the way, Matt, can you post something here so I don't have to be constantly reminded that I passed on the SS1 and 2 covers... already regretting admitting it. MODS, GET YOUR AXE READY!!!

[TStrong-migration]

For me, the talk about money/value can get tiresome both ways. Not just from KK, but from the Chicken Littles, too.

 

For me there's a middle ground. I suspect that's true for most of us. That's why this poll was so interesting to me.

 

It's about the art but it's also about the money. I only collect the pieces that I like but that doesn't mean I don't care what I spend. If I had more money, maybe I wouldn't care. I don't have much money. I care alot.

 

I follow Heritage and Ebay and other auction sites to get an idea of value. There may be some collectors that can buy art regardless of its relative market value but I'm not one of them.

[jbud73]

Also can we say "housing market" ??

Well the only reason that happened was because of the greed of your financial Institutions in the US or A because here in Toronto the housing market continues to break records ( a tear down not live-able house goes for $350,000.00. )

 

 

If the Canadian government passed a law tomorrow mandating that 1/2 of all mortgage loans were given to low income and credit risk candidates, and that those loans could then be sold to the government, I can predict where your housing market will be headed.

 

It would create a market out of securities that were viewed as junk just prior to that law's passage....just like it did over here.

 

That's what happened here, and GLOBAL (i.e. not just American ) banks took up derivative swap positions that leveraged those previously junky securities to levels hundreds of times the size of their true value.

 

The Old US of A ain't got the market cornered on greed. Several entire European countries almost went bankrupt trying to wet their beaks.

 

C

 

That's a pretty good summation, the thing I always found interesting was that people were so shocked over the Credit Derivatives situation - wondering how this kind of thing continues to happen in the financial markets. What I feel they fail to realize is that in any market there are certain elements that will look to find, or create loop holes in the system in order to maximize their financial growth.

 

I think the advice "buy what you like and can afford" is good, but potentially better advice is "don't buy what you can't afford and hope will increase in value to validate your bad decision making."

 

[Nexus]

 

-- Dan F recalls when the Tony Christopher collection was dispersed, that Kirby values flattened out for a while;

 

-- David Miller disputes this (in the nicest possible, least confrontational, manner);

 

-- Hari gently corrects David and agrees with Dan;

 

 

I would also add that Dan and I went back and forth a few more times and the information discussed was very valuable and I soon came around to (for the most part) agreeing with Dan.

 

OK, let me amend:

 

-- Dan F recalls when the Tony Christopher collection was dispersed, that Kirby values flattened out for a while;

 

-- David Miller disputes this (in the nicest possible, least confrontational, manner);

 

-- There's some back and forth between Dan and David;

 

-- Hari gently corrects David and agrees with Dan;

 

-- David immediately sees the error of his ways.

 

 

I would love to read Mankuta's assesment of the SS covers -- where they are, which ones are the best, etc. -- I'm very sorry that I missed that posting!

 

Basically, as I recall, Jon Mankuta posted that #4 was in a "tightly-held" private collection and that the OA differed from the published version (SS and Thor are further apart in the OA, closer together on the comic). Much like "many" of the other SS covers. And that's why #9 was one of the best...because it looked exactly like the published image.

 

I'm sure Ron S. could elaborate even more, since Jon gave him the whole spiel at the SDCC dinner.

 

BTW, congrats to Ron on the big pickup. Mike Burkey is great to deal with and he sure gets a lot of impressive stuff on consignment. Good talking to you today, as always (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

[dem1138]

Hold on...let me amend...

 

 

-- Dan F recalls when the Tony Christopher collection was dispersed, that Kirby values flattened out for a while;

 

-- David Miller disputes this (in the nicest possible, least confrontational, manner);

 

-- Hari gently corrects David and agrees with Dan;

 

 

I would also add that Dan and I went back and forth a few more times and the information discussed was very valuable and I soon came around to (for the most part) agreeing with Dan.

 

OK, let me amend:

 

-- Dan F recalls when the Tony Christopher collection was dispersed, that Kirby values flattened out for a while;

 

-- David Miller disputes this (in the nicest possible, least confrontational, manner);

 

-- Hari gently corrects David and agrees with Dan;

 

-- There's some back and forth between Dan and David;

 

-- David immediately sees the error of his ways.

 

 

 

I will always give Hari as much, if not more, credit than he deserves but Dan gets the credit for swaying me on this one...

[heartened]

For me, the talk about money/value can get tiresome both ways. Not just from KK, but from the Chicken Littles, too.

 

For me there's a middle ground. I suspect that's true for most of us. That's why this poll was so interesting to me.

 

It's about the art but it's also about the money. I only collect the pieces that I like but that doesn't mean I don't care what I spend. If I had more money, maybe I wouldn't care. I don't have much money. I care alot.

 

I follow Heritage and Ebay and other auction sites to get an idea of value. There may be some collectors that can buy art regardless of its relative market value but I'm not one of them.

 

The truth ALWAYS lies in the middle

 

The market is neither collapsing nor going gangbusters. Unfortunately most people who post their opinions are on one extreme or the other, leaving us feeling confused at best and angered at worst.

 

Yet, there is a continuum of opinions, and I would suggest that where you are in that continuum has a lot to do with where you are in our collections, how financially stable you are, and what your expectations from this hobby were, are, and will be. Such expectations are also necessarily fueled by both emotion/nostalgia as well as finances. As prices escalate, finances are (for better or worse) becoming more important.

 

[tth2]

From the way I understand it, the mods can't (maybe "won't weed thru"is more realistic) deleted individual posts. So, if KK started on one his posting sprees the mods will delete all the posts from the start of his stuff to the end of it. Anything in between becomes a casualty.

 

Not sure why everyone assumed it was Ruben's posts that got the thread chopped up. I don't think he (or anyone else for that matter) said anything particularly controversial.

 

So I got a hold of CGC and was told that a mod did, in fact, delete everything starting from Matt(KK)'s first post in the thread. Which seems like a really clumsy way of handling it since a. a good discussion had developed in spite of Matt(KK) and b. Matt(KK)'s latest shill is still here.

That's weird. The mods can definitely delete individual posts, although if a post has been quoted then they have to delete all the subsequent posts containing the quote. And as everyone has noted, the post from OA-GENTLEMAN is still there. Maybe the mods just liked the imagery of KK diving through his money bin?

 

I missed the thread this weekend, so I don't really know what took place.

 

My best recollection (my impressions, not necessarily the posters' exact words) of what got deleted:

 

-- Ruben longs for the old days when the hobby took more work and there was less talk of money...the money-centric nature of these boards disgusts him;

 

-- Dan F believes investors do less to raise market values than collectors;

 

-- Dan F recalls when the Tony Christopher collection was dispersed, that Kirby values flattened out for a while;

 

-- David Miller disputes this (in the nicest possible, least confrontational, manner);

 

-- Hari gently corrects David and agrees with Dan;

 

-- Ron S reveals the piece that shoots him up the spending ladder: The Buscema SS #9 cover that he acquires from Mike Burkey...after Jon Mankuta tells him how great it is at SDCC;

 

-- Folks congratulate Ron, including Jon Mankuta who then tells the rest of us about SS covers and why #9 is better than the others.

 

That's what stood out to me and what I remember. Anyone else can feel free to fill in the blanks.

Okay, that matches up with what I remember last reading, so there was not a complete subsequent meltdown in this thread.

[tth2]

Another factor is that in comics and art hobbying, prices never seem to go down in reflection of lack of interest, lessened interest or a collapsing pyramid as happens in virtually all other hobbies.

 

In movie posters for instance, 2 years ago a copy of This Gun For Hire was auctioned by Heritage and reached $47,800

 

they followed it up with 3 more auctions in the following 2 years with the poster going for $22k, $21k and $20k which is back to where the poster was selling before the $47k result. So once again the poster is a $20k poster

 

However, in comic books - this is not allowed to happen, creating a false belief that a comic that sold for $47,800 is always worth $47,800 until it goes up again because one collector was willing to pay $47,800 for it to the exclusivity of all other collectors for a particular item

 

In other words, it is not allowed for a comic book or piece of comic art to be allowed to "fall back to Earth".

Huh? What do you mean comic books aren't allowed to fall in price? As Dave has already correctly pointed out, there are numerous cases out there of comics that are selling for well below their peak prices.

 

Also, logistically, how exactly does one pull this off? Suppose I'm the guy who paid $47,800 for a book, and then I see another similar grade copy come up for auction. Even if I bid $47,800 on the book to "support" the price, my winning bid will only be the increment above the underbidder. So using your movie poster example, if the other bidders are only willing to bid $20K for it, then my winning bid is only going to be $21K. Short of shilling myself, there's no way to ensure that the winning bid will be $47,800 or thereabouts.

 

Comiclink did experiment with a bidding option for a while where you could choose to have your max bid show up as the bid, even if it was well above any underbidders, but I imagine the take-up on this bizarre option wasn't very high, since they got rid of it.

[dem1138]

Hari, that is an excellent point (credit to Hari ).

 

Lets talk about other elephants in the room, such as how often times prices are arrived at and can skew the markets. There are several people in the hobby that can pay whatever they want. If you study artists and prices, you may develop a strong feel for what the market will bear for certain pieces. Then person A (who can spend whatever they want) can come along and blow that perception out of the water by spending more than anyone else thought a piece was worth. Suddenly because piece X sold for Y - the perception becomes that all similar pieces by X are now worth Y (+/- 10%). But in reality, person A only wanted X, and doesn't want any others so the perception is it is worth a number that would never be repeated. However, sometimes that number does get repeated and the market actually grows. Sometimes the number does not get repeated and people have art that they overvalue based on a skewed perception. The fact that each piece is unique is a very significant factor in this scenario because while a collector may love a certain cover by a certain artist for a certain series - they may not be interested in any of the other covers so while they would pay anything for a specific cover, they won't pay anything for the other covers. However, when they pay anything, suddenly the perception becomes that all of the covers are worth approximately the same amount when they simply are not (until that price is repeated).

 

Clearly this is much different than a stock market where even if someone can pay whatever they want, the stock has a price and that's all they have to pay to buy it.

[jbud73]

Hari, that is an excellent point (credit to Hari ).

 

Lets talk about other elephants in the room, such as how often times prices are arrived at and can skew the markets. There are several people in the hobby that can pay whatever they want. If you study artists and prices, you may develop a strong feel for what the market will bear for certain pieces. Then person A (who can spend whatever they want) can come along and blow that perception out of the water by spending more than anyone else thought a piece was worth. Suddenly because piece X sold for Y - the perception becomes that all similar pieces by X are now worth Y (+/- 10%). But in reality, person A only wanted X, and doesn't want any others so the perception is it is worth a number that would never be repeated. However, sometimes that number does get repeated and the market actually grows. Sometimes the number does not get repeated and people have art that they overvalue based on a skewed perception. The fact that each piece is unique is a very significant factor in this scenario because while a collector may love a certain cover by a certain artist for a certain series - they may not be interested in any of the other covers so while they would pay anything for a specific cover, they won't pay anything for the other covers. However, when they pay anything, suddenly the perception becomes that all of the covers are worth approximately the same amount when they simply are not (until that price is repeated).

 

Clearly this is much different than a stock market where even if someone can pay whatever they want, the stock has a price and that's all they have to pay to buy it.

 

That's a really nice summation as well. The thing that also gets me is that this happens as much as it does in comics, especially in SA and BA comics (minus the stuff Hong Kong Hui collects) which have multiple copies in grade and the infinite potential for at least one more copy in grade.

 

That this happens to a certain degree in OA I understand, because of the uniqueness factor and because the OA market is much smaller that the comics market and therefore easier to manipulate. Not waving the conspiracy flag here, but the logic follows based on the laws of supply demand and origin point as technically all art originates from once source - the artist, or their rep.

 

I think collectors must be wary of what Dem is describing in each market, comics and OA, unless of course you are the whale

 

 

[batman_fan]

For myself, the most frustrating thing about collecting OA is really the need for focus, patiences, and networking. I only attend Wondercon and San Jose con so my networking is limited. I have mastered the focus and patience side of things but it can be hard at times.

[heartened]

Hari, that is an excellent point (credit to Hari ).

 

Lets talk about other elephants in the room, such as how often times prices are arrived at and can skew the markets. There are several people in the hobby that can pay whatever they want. If you study artists and prices, you may develop a strong feel for what the market will bear for certain pieces. Then person A (who can spend whatever they want) can come along and blow that perception out of the water by spending more than anyone else thought a piece was worth. Suddenly because piece X sold for Y - the perception becomes that all similar pieces by X are now worth Y (+/- 10%). But in reality, person A only wanted X, and doesn't want any others so the perception is it is worth a number that would never be repeated. However, sometimes that number does get repeated and the market actually grows. Sometimes the number does not get repeated and people have art that they overvalue based on a skewed perception. The fact that each piece is unique is a very significant factor in this scenario because while a collector may love a certain cover by a certain artist for a certain series - they may not be interested in any of the other covers so while they would pay anything for a specific cover, they won't pay anything for the other covers. However, when they pay anything, suddenly the perception becomes that all of the covers are worth approximately the same amount when they simply are not (until that price is repeated).

 

Clearly this is much different than a stock market where even if someone can pay whatever they want, the stock has a price and that's all they have to pay to buy it.

 

David,

 

I agree with part of your post but disagree with the rest. Of course, the part I agree with is that I had an excellent point previously

 

Seriously, though, I do see your argument and there is some truth to it. Markets are pushed up because dealer or collector A says "Hey, did you see that Steranko cover went for 75K?" Word gets around and folks start thinking that Steranko has reached this level. But, most folks are smart enough to realize that not ALL Steranko covers may reach that level, just the "great" ones and also just when there is a buyer for that particular cover. The next Steranko cover may be priced at or above that 75K, but it may not sell. If it doesn't sell, then prices will be adjusted or (and here's where it gets complicated) it sells for cash/trade at the "for sale price".

 

In the first scenario, selling for less cash, say 50K, the market dynamics have determined appropriately that not all Steranko covers are the same; that is, there are some worth less than 75K. In the second scenario, the market dynamics are purturbed by the trade component, which in the seller's mind comes up to 75K but in the buyer's mind may only be 50K. It's this latter deal-making that pushes the market up and maintains high prices.

 

This is the reason why folks are wary of large sales; that is, because trade components are commonly involved, making true valuation suspect. This is the MAIN reason I made my poll cash-only, so we could get a true sense of values/spending.

 

Hari

 

[westform]

David, et al; what you are not realizing is that this same phenomena happens in reverse as well and can act as a counterbalance. I have seen mediocre pieces by a certain artist come up for public sale and reach, well, mediocre prices. Then I've tried to sell a premium, boffo piece by the same artist only to encounter resistance because, well, my price was at a premium too... especially compared to those mediocre public numbers that were posted. It then becomes quite a battle of wits to convince the potential buyers that, no, really, your piece is worth more; IT IS BETTER. You can stand firm, but the already posted lower numbers usually start with the upper ground in the negotiation. Fact is, if you want to move the piece quickly, you may have to lower your price and thereby actually work to decrease the natural escalation of that particular market.... just part of the fun of the hobby...

[jjonahjameson1]

If it doesn't sell, then prices will be adjusted or (and here's where it gets complicated) it sells for cash/trade at the "for sale price".

 

Hari

 

Hi, Hari;

 

I don't play in the same sandbox as the BSD's or whatever term is appropriate for 'high rollers' these days, but based on my experience, I too, would have thought that the selling prices will be adjusted if artwork doesn't sell at the initial price, and especially in light of a slowdown in dealer sales this year.

 

But guess what? I haven't seen prices adjusted downward. In fact, it seems as though prices on dealer sites have actually increased this year and I've noticed the same pieces available for longer periods of time.

 

I think Chris made an excellent point earlier in this thread whereby he hasn't seen prices drop, but he has seen some more/nicer/formerly locked down pieces become available.

 

 

[heartened]

Hi,

 

This is true. More pieces may be coming out of the woodwork to take advantage of today's market prices. I actually haven't seen much of this for the stuff I collect, but I'm sure it's happening in most sectors of this hobby to varying extents.

 

So, prices may not have come down, but there may be a bit more choices at the same or similar price points.

 

My point was that actual sale prices are hard to get because of the cash/trade mix in many art sales these days, and I think that is even moreso when the economy is hurt. Price maintanence may have more to do with a larger trade component these days compared to prior times, rather than to actual cash paid. This hasn't been my personal experience because I almost never sell/trade pieces, preferring to pay cash/check. But, I do get a sense that a large number of deals are part trade these days, and it seems a larger percent of the deals than in times past. This may chance again as the economy improves, and folks are more cash-rich.

 

Just trying to give some sense of why our OA hobby has been so resilient. Obviously, the collector mentality, with collectors reluctant to move one-of-a-kind pieces with such emotional attachment has a lot to do with it as well.

 

 

 

[heartened]

PS, my points have nothing to do with the amount spent. The market dynamics are at play for both larger and smaller deals, and everything in between. However, I think trade is even more a component of the larger deals.

 

[jjonahjameson1]

PS, my points have nothing to do with the amount spent. The market dynamics are at play for both larger and smaller deals, and everything in between. However, I think trade is even more a component of the larger deals.

 

Too true. I think, perhaps, one market dynamic that hasn't been discussed is the proliferation of consignment pieces on dealer sites. Maybe dealers' cash-on-hand availability has been hampered and they are relunctant to purchase pieces outright for cash so they offer consignment as an option to sellers more frequently than before?

 

Bestest,

 

-Yoram

[westform]

These are alot of suppositions guys! I have found there to be no lack of cash on hand in my personal dealings. In fact, out of the last 5 pieces I sold, 3 (large ticket items) of them I had to struggle to put trade into the deals even though the buyers wanted to pay me all or mostly cash.

 

Personally, I have found cash to be somewhat tight in my own personal life, but there seems to be more cash in the hobby. Keep in mind, that collectibles seem to be perceived as a safe haven right now and many of the folks buying be they dealers or collectors are using funds they've made off OA or Comics to pump back in... and since prices seem to be high and escalating there is a high or escalating source of funds to tap.

 

I thought we would have seen some drop off in prices this year, but other than one or two flat or slow Heritage auctions, the overall market for OA seems to be climbing once again to new heights.... unfortunately, to heights that may soon price me out of the hobby altogether...