It happened to comics...

[Eric Seffinga]

 

Hummels Article

 

While original art is not made for the collectibles market per se, I think some of the new stuff is. More importantly though, it's the modern art market where the "value" is often built in up front, and selling in high dollar jolts. That made me think this article might be of interest.

 

If nothing else, it's a case of what happens when something falls out of favor? Could the golden age art end up in this cycle, where unless it's the blue chip household-name character stuff, the interest in old strips and stories just doesn't connect with future generations?

 

-e.

[CollectingFool]

Good article! I try to explain to non-collectors that anything that is made specifically for the collector market should NEVER be bought for investment purposes. To me its the same as buying tourist trap garbage overseas and thinking it's going to be valuable in the future.

 

It's not completely relevant to this hobby. These are after all unique items. Also, they are truly collectible because they weren't meant to be kept or even seen by the public. Comic OA that has survived (from before 1985 when returns were not the standard) is in a completley different league. To me the part of this article that is relevant is how the "newer stuff created for the collectibles market" really tanked in price. I see that in OA as artists doing commissions for insane prices. The resale value of those pieces very rarely holds up. Also, a lot of new artwork being created now is sold through dealers at insanely high prices. As far as I've seen, it seldomly resells for the same prices and even more seldomly for more.

 

 

 

[jbud73]

The price of the new OA is really a unique tangent to OA in terms of the overall collectibles mythology. Typically the older the more expensive and more stable the collectible will be, there are caveats and exceptions of course. In OA a lot of new art is priced more than the pre-1985 mark referenced here and on par with much Bronze OA, especially splashes and covers.

 

I think this trend is even more prevalent now than it was in comics in the mid to later 80s, where hot books (does anyone remember that Liefeld New Mutants books were selling for more than some SA Spideys) were priced through the roof.

 

This trend of course did not endure in comics, it still exists but to a much smaller degree. The price of new OA has seen much more resistance in terms of sustaining LISTED PRICES, tough to say how long this will last. The resale and therefore multiple flip potential, as discussed by Ruben, probably is not there so that may impact the sustainability of the trend.

[comicartcom]

Nothing more needs to be said than the last paragraph.

 

Like so many things, demographics will be the driver of the Hummel market of the future: everyday, Hummel enthusiasts pass away and their treasures get dumped onto an already saturated market. Without any new collectors to replace them, Hummels are likely to continue their descent into poverty.

 

I've been saying this for years about a variety of subjects on this board.

 

Superman and Batman will always have buyers

 

Blue Bolt?? Wonderman? ..............................NOT!!!

 

this is in all hobbies. My main focus today is movie posters.

Classic golden age cinema is losing ground. Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz.. they will always be popular.

 

Tillie's Punctured Romance?? Scattergood Goes to Holywood?? ...... NOT!!!

 

the people who remember that stuff are dead or dying.

 

can we say.... Pulps!!!

 

 

[AtlasFan]

Well, just like the POG market, Hummels will be back...just you wait and see!

[fc]

It is was a good article. Thanks for sharing it.

 

I am going to agree with Ruben. Especially his remark:

 

" I see that in OA as artists doing commissions for insane prices. The resale value of those pieces very rarely holds up. Also, a lot of new artwork being created now is sold through dealers at insanely high prices. As far as I've seen, it seldomly resells for the same prices and even more seldomly for more."

 

If the character in the art or the style does not have a strong following it is destined to be just

like a hummel figurine. The person selling the art for the first time will ask as much as the

market will bear and if the art is not successful it will bottom out over time. Rather predictable

if you take new art as a whole and avoid discussing the few exceptions to the rule.

 

What comicartcon also rings true. I cannot think of a collectible that truly was dead in

the water only to come back really strong decades later. I am trying though! If i think of

one I will edit the post. One never knows when a fad will catch on igniting an old collectible

genre.

 

 

[AKA Rick]

GREAT POINT about commissions. To me, I'd rather buy a published piece over a commission by the same artist for several reasons.

 

A published piece is a true one of a kind item that has verifiable certification to the date it was created and a certain appeal to me knowing it is an authentic licensed piece of memorabilia used in the process of creating a comic book.

 

Commissions, when you pay to get them done... sometimes you don't know what you're going to get in quality. Also, although every piece of art is one-of-a-kind, it's the difference between owning the orginal Hulk #181 cover by Herb Trimpe, and owning one of the many hand drawn cover-recreations of Hulk #181 by Herb Trimpe - - each of the recreations are one-of-a-kind and unique line for line... but what's to stop him from cranking out dozens if not hundreds of recreations? Also, the same goes for let's say an Adam Hughes commission. Unique and stylish as each one is, I'd still rather invest the money in a published cover or page over a commission if given the opportunity.

 

Also, to some degree, there's also some issues of counterfeit or forgery commissions and sketches. I think for published comic art, it's less often encountered.

 

Commissions are still nice and fun to collect as a hobby, but I still prefer published art from an investment standpoint in addition to being part of a hobby.

[CollectingFool]

GREAT POINT about commissions.

 

While I think on average the resale price for most commissions is break even at best, I was specifically referring to artists that charge $2K, $5K, $10K for a custom piece. There are exceptions of course. Jack Kirby did a bunch of recreations that go for huge money. Dave Stevens as well. Commissions are a personal interaction between the collector and the artist. Paying a little bit more that you feel something is worth when buying directly from an artist you appreciate is no big deal. Paying $5K for a commission from an artist you don't really know as an investment is downright foolish IMO.

 

Adam Hughes is a rare exception. Commissions from Adam are rare and usually only go to friends as far as I know. Convention sketches which are better quality than many artist's commissions usually go for 3 to 5 times what Adam charges. I know there are auctions now for some of the conventions they go to. Personally I would rather travel out to an "out of the way" show and take my chances with less competition.

 

You have to remember the "premium" you pay to an artist is not just for the art but for his time as well. Unless the guy has nothing going on he can make more money working on his published work. I have no problem with paying a little more to support an artist. Just don't do it if you ever plan to resell the artwork for a profit.

 

[SuperBird]

I cannot think of a collectible that truly was dead in

the water only to come back really strong decades later.

 

 

Wacky Packs!

[Action7-migration]

Nothing more needs to be said than the last paragraph.

 

Like so many things, demographics will be the driver of the Hummel market of the future: everyday, Hummel enthusiasts pass away and their treasures get dumped onto an already saturated market. Without any new collectors to replace them, Hummels are likely to continue their descent into poverty.

 

I've been saying this for years about a variety of subjects on this board.

 

Superman and Batman will always have buyers

 

Blue Bolt?? Wonderman? ..............................NOT!!!

 

this is in all hobbies. My main focus today is movie posters.

Classic golden age cinema is losing ground. Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz.. they will always be popular.

 

Tillie's Punctured Romance?? Scattergood Goes to Holywood?? ...... NOT!!!

 

the people who remember that stuff are dead or dying.

 

can we say.... Pulps!!!

 

 

and Spiderman!

[fc]

I cannot think of a collectible that truly was dead in

the water only to come back really strong decades later.

 

 

Wacky Packs!

 

I am not sure that is a good example. Why?

 

They were bought and consumed. During that time kids liked them for fun and

they "used" them in any way they saw fit.

 

I cannot recall a secondary market for them during the 1980s or 1990s that caused

them to go up in price and then only to see the whole collectible aspect to go

downhill.

 

Thus this mini boom in seeing them as collectible, to me, is their first shot at a

secondary market that is big enough for people to take notice. They are not

going through a major rebirth in collectability (sp?).

 

I may be wrong though but that is how I remember it. I used to buy them when I

was young.

[jgallo]

I saw this article and though it was rather interesting.

 

I have had this discussion with a buddy of mine several times. He was never into golden age stuff at all and I love the early hero and pre hero stuff. In his point of view, that stuff should die as more books are published and the interest shifts to 70s and 80s stuff. I think we saw this with the boom of bronze age books.

 

Will golden age stuff become worthless I doubt it, but you see a lot of the odd ball titles sit in lower to mid grade and this isn't something new, it has been that way for years.

 

The blue chips will always be blue chips, as long as the characters are in the public eye. Things like Amazing Fantasy 15, Tec 27 and Action 1 will always have more demand then supply. I don't think we have to worry about the collectible comic market as these things were not made to put on a shelf and even today comics are bought read and destroyed.

 

I tend to think that people progress and will generally always gone back in time. I collected Batman as a kid and slower wanted earlier and earlier stuff until I wanted that Tec 27, perhaps everyone isn't like me but with the demand for the key books it seems that way.

 

Will someone that read Ultimate Spider man go looking for the original stuff, maybe at some point, but who knows, they might find the art boring and poor, where I see all this new styled art and uninteresting and not appealing.

 

To each his own, but I think for the most part the comic hobby is fine and certainly MUCH MUCH more main stream the Hummels EVER were.

 

James G

[comicparadox]

Marvel Comics #1? Discuss...

[otherworldsj33]

Same old story. To get my money back, or even make a profit, I follow these rules when I look to buy art. I am generalizing, a lot of exceptions, and nothing new here, but it may bear repeating, here goes.

Shop around, do your HW. Network and be educated. At auctions, bid with care and intelligence. There are shill bidders, vicious bidders, and price manipulation at these auctions in some circumstances. Buy vintage published stuff, of iconic caracters, preferably a classic or iconic page and/or artist. Buy quality, not quantity. I know this next one is near impossible for us (I'm no exception), but don't fall in love with a piece. There are usually like/kind pieces out there, give it time, be paitent. Lust is the cousin of greed. Set a goal and budget. Leave flexabilty in your plan. In many cases, Be prepared to hold the art for a while. And of course, it's almost a cliche by now, buy what you like. If you make a huge sum great. If you make a little, thats fine too. If you break even, or lost a little, at least you had the pleasure of the art, and there is a value to that.

[artcollector9]

Great advice Joe. I agree wholeheartedly with all your points. I'd only add this: Don't pay above market value for a piece. So many dealers, and collectors, ask 2X+ market value, and you have a rude awakening when you want to sell or trade it and lose 1/2 of your investment. Some dealers and collectors are somewhat fair, some are out to rape you, plain and simple. I've had 'reputable' dealers offer me art for 4X (400%!) true market value-- that means they offered me a piece that is worth tops $5000 for $20,000. I don't know how these guys sleep at night. LET THE BUYER BEWARE, or Caveat Emptor. THis is the first and most important rule for the would be buyer. Do your homework. ALWAYS be ready to walk away from a deal. Cash is king, and cash will continue to reign in 2010 and 2011.

[stinkininkin]

Great advice Joe. I agree wholeheartedly with all your points. I'd only add this: Don't pay above market value for a piece. So many dealers, and collectors, ask 2X+ market value, and you have a rude awakening when you want to sell or trade it and lose 1/2 of your investment. Some dealers and collectors are somewhat fair, some are out to rape you, plain and simple. I've had 'reputable' dealers offer me art for 4X (400%!) true market value-- that means they offered me a piece that is worth tops $5000 for $20,000. I don't know how these guys sleep at night. LET THE BUYER BEWARE, or Caveat Emptor. THis is the first and most important rule for the would be buyer. Do your homework. ALWAYS be ready to walk away from a deal. Cash is king, and cash will continue to reign in 2010 and 2011.

 

Hey Rob

 

You know we see eye to eye on lots of collecting goals, but I don't agree with you about not paying over market value. I feel that I've harped on this in previous posts, but most of my best pieces have come from paying OVER market value. It's the only way I have been able to get the best art in the last 15 years or so. I've said it before, I'd RATHER pay market value or less of course, but it seems there is always someone who can pay more, so I swallow hard and overpay (up to a point), and it's never been a mistake as long as I love the piece, it's of a proven vintage and track record, and I'm willing to hold onto it for a while (say 5 years and beyond). This is only for the best stuff though, otherwise all bets are off. If you overpay for an AVERAGE piece, you better love it because you'll be hard pressed to get your money back anytime soon. Like Rob says, do your homework!

 

Scott Williams

[artcollector9]

Good point Scott, and I'd agree with you.

 

You are really discussing TOP shelf, the best of the best, and I think you are right, as you said, that one can pay 'over market', up to a point.

 

But what is that point? That's the question.

 

(I was trying to generalize that I think in 2010 at least, UNLESS the piece is top shelf, don't pay over market...you won't HAVE TO.)

 

 

This is all very difficult to assess objectively. First, what is true market value of a piece? We can only give parameters. Second, what is reasonably above market value--20%? 50%?

 

I was offered Frazetta art at what I thought was 4X market value. Now I'm not paying 4X value no matter how much I love the piece.

 

Roughly speaking, I'd say 50% above market value for a top piece would be MY limit.

 

What say YOU??

 

[stinkininkin]

Good point Scott, and I'd agree with you.

 

You are really discussing TOP shelf, the best of the best, and I think you are right, as you said, that one can pay 'over market', up to a point.

 

But what is that point? That's the question.

 

(I was trying to generalize that I think in 2010 at least, UNLESS the piece is top shelf, don't pay over market...you won't HAVE TO.)

 

 

This is all very difficult to assess objectively. First, what is true market value of a piece? We can only give parameters. Second, what is reasonably above market value--20%? 50%?

 

I was offered Frazetta art at what I thought was 4X market value. Now I'm not paying 4X value no matter how much I love the piece.

 

Roughly speaking, I'd say 50% above market value for a top piece would be MY limit.

 

What say YOU??

 

Yes, I was ONLY speaking of the absolute best art, because a previous post emphasized quality over quantity. I agree with that sentiment, and quality is expensive. Most art on the market does not qualify and I would NEVER overpay for average art or even very good art, even if there is a strong nostalgia element attached. Only best of the best. The catch is that the best of the best stuff changes hands so infrequently that it is often very difficult to access market value, and unless you are experienced, to what extent you'd actually be overpaying.

 

As for how much to overpay, your range seems about right, maybe 20-50%. But I would be more inclined to overpay by up to 50% on a really special piece in the four figure range than in the 5 figure range. Either way, overpaying by 50% would have to entail a truly rare and supreme piece, and I have yet to ever go that far.

 

And for the record, I don't just limit my collecting to the best of the best, so if I'm interested in buying something from one of my friends here on the board or elsewhere, don't assume I'll overpay just because I'm interested.

 

There. I've covered my *spoon*.

 

Scott Williams

[malvin]

Since OA is one of a kind, when you pay 50% above market value for a prime example, doesn't that become the market value for that piece?

 

Malvin

[adamstrange]

Since OA is one of a kind, when you pay 50% above market value for a prime example, doesn't that become the market value for that piece?

 

Malvin

It becomes the new known "top of market" for a piece. There's some value for most pieces of art but there's a bigger pool of buyer at the low price then there are at the high price. Just because 1 person pays $1500 for what people think is a $1000 piece doesn't mean that there is another buyer at that price when it comes up for sale. It could be there are many or it could be that there are none and that the next highest buyer is only interested up to some amount less than $1500.