1983 prices VS 10 years from now?

[oakman29]

In looking at all the posts its all really a matter or what time period we are looking at simply because things go up and down. One gent mentioned in an above post about gold at $ 500 a ounce in 1983 and making profit. If you bought it in 1979 you when it was over 800 an ounce, then you would have gotten hurt. If you held it for 10 years it would have then gone down to about $ 280 to $ 350 for about 10 years. Its not about its ups and downs. I strictly about knowing when and what to get in on and when to get out.

I purchased 10 copies of 1st appearance of Swamp Thing a number of years ago for maybe 4 to 8 dollars each and sold a number of them in 9.8 for close to $ 300 a pop. If I went to sell them now, how would they sell. I would think most likely much lower than $ 300. But other books have skyrocketed and stayed up in price. I have to feel that, Its really about doing your homework and figuring what to buy low to sell higher no matter what the market.

 

I highly doubt they were Swamp Things 1st App. 1.there is no 9.8 Swamp Things,or House of Secrets #92 I obsess over this book,looking for 9.8s or 9.8 worthy.I however have two a 9.2 and a 9.4,believing that these were candidates for 9.6/9.8 status,to my surprise.

[paleontol99-migration]

I had written the post after, that it was not 1st SWAMP THING. Hard to see after the page changes It was SWAMP THING #37 1ST JOHN CONSTANTINE. I had to go back thru archives to see exactly what it was. I should have looked it up first.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Good points but 1983 was 27 years ago, when I look at comic prices from 5 to 8 years ago according to the GPA most comicbook prices have either went down or are stagnant. an ounce of gold bought 5 to 8 years ago would have been more profitable but that`s for another thread somewhere.

 

Yes, gold has definitely held up well............. (thumbs u

 

If you bought gold in Feb. of 1983, you likely would have paid over $500 an ounce, and in that case Golden Age would have been a better investment.

My point was lets not go all the way back to 1983, lets look at more current data, there was no CGC or internet/Ebay back then, I use 5 years ago as my barometer and one ounce of gold bought then would have been a better investment then most comics 5 years ago and even now for liquidy, if I buy an ounce of gold today,I can flip it faster than buying $1400 dollar comic. We tend to say oh yeah I could have bought Action 1 for ten cents in 1938, yeah that`s all find in dandy about 1938, 1983 or 1993 but I prefer to look at the GPA and Ebay and go with more current trends then reminisce that Hulk #181 was going for under $50 dollars in 1983.

 

Unless the bottom falls out:

 

Gold in 1980: $612/oz

Gold in 1990: $384/oz

Gold in 2000: $279/oz

wow! people would have been rich if they bought in 2000 as gold goes for $1200 an ounce as of today.

[tth2]

I would say the likelihood is that many SA and GA have already seen their peaks.

I've heard people say this in 1985, 1995 and 2005. If I were old enough, I probably would've heard it in 1975 and 1965.

 

The point I was making to Delekkerste originally was that the comic hobby's path is littered with the carcasses of people who called a top. With great conviction, and with very eloquent and well thought reasons. But still wrong nonetheless.

 

Doesn't mean it might not finally be true this time, just that it's been a losing proposition so far.

[the blob]

"Gold in 2000: $279/oz"

 

"wow! people would have been rich if they bought in 2000 as gold goes for $1200 an ounce as of today."

 

For once I (unknowingly) timed things well as that's when I started dating my wife and bought her a lot of nice (heavy) 18K gold jewelry in 2000 and 2001 up until 9/11. maybe I should have listened to her in 2000 and bought her more jewelry!

[RockMyAmadeus]

I I assume they were NM (9.2) prices.

 

No, those prices were for MINT books!

 

...

 

I was actually thinking those were restored 5.0 prices

 

 

Just pointing out that "NM" and "9.2" were unknown concepts back in 1983. "NM" maybe, but 9.2 fo sho.

 

(thumbs u

 

NM was commonly used in 1983, and long before. As loose as grading was back then, it was clear that most books, even nice ones, were short of actual Mint. NM- (9.2) was pretty much unheard of, though people did use +/- grades ( mostly just +) and split grades, but NM- was probably splitting the hair between VF/NM and NM too thin.

 

Please note the qualified statement in the second sentence. (thumbs u

 

Even as late as the mid 90's there was debate in the letter pages of CBM as too whether both +/- grades and split grades should be used or just one or the other.

 

.

 

The acceptance of the term "Near Mint" took place slowly over the course of the 1980's. OPG didn't begin to use "NM" officially as the top price in the guide until 1989; prior to then, "NM" was the exception in use, rather than the rule, despite being included in the 8 "point" grading system in the OPG since the mid 70's. These days, "mint" is the exception nomenclature, and "NM" the rule; back in the late 70's/early 80's, those roles were reversed. "NM", like VG and VF, weren't often used on a widespread basis.

 

In fact, I remember as late as 1989/1990 dealers referring to books as "mint" condition (despite the OPG acknowledging that "NM" was better nomenclature) and disdaining the use of "Near Mint" as meaningless qualifying.

 

My comment was just to clarify my tongue-in-cheek remark; it wasn't intended to be an exhaustive treatise on when and how grading nomenclature came to be (though I'm perfectly up for that, if you'd like......).

 

(thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

For those with rose colored glasses on future prices of comics, I suggest you find a Beckett from 1993 and check out baseball card prices then compared to now. Or a stamp guide from 1983. Or a coin guide from the same.

 

Oooo...I would LOVE to pay 1983 coin prices again...

 

I'd love to pay 1997 coin prices even more (the coin market did a serious correction in the 90's. And when I say serious, I don't mean like comics, where everything EXCEPT high grade Silver took a dive, and that market soraed to ever new heights...I mean EVERYTHING.)

 

But the 2000's have been a boon for coin collecting, and prices have increased dramatically across all series.

 

(thumbs u

[PokerKid]

"Gold in 2000: $279/oz"

 

"wow! people would have been rich if they bought in 2000 as gold goes for $1200 an ounce as of today."

 

For once I (unknowingly) timed things well as that's when I started dating my wife and bought her a lot of nice (heavy) 18K gold jewelry in 2000 and 2001 up until 9/11. maybe I should have listened to her in 2000 and bought her more jewelry!

 

Nope. I am guessing your investment is of $0 value currently, or at least zero liquidity. However, you wife does get to wear a much more expensive necklace and if that makes her happy, you have made a great investment.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Now you're cooking! That one I buy.

 

Not from me, you didn't....

[ft88]

For those with rose colored glasses on future prices of comics, I suggest you find a Beckett from 1993 and check out baseball card prices then compared to now. Or a stamp guide from 1983. Or a coin guide from the same.

 

Oooo...I would LOVE to pay 1983 coin prices again...

 

I'd love to pay 1997 coin prices even more (the coin market did a serious correction in the 90's. And when I say serious, I don't mean like comics, where everything EXCEPT high grade Silver took a dive, and that market soraed to ever new heights...I mean EVERYTHING.)

 

But the 2000's have been a boon for coin collecting, and prices have increased dramatically across all series.

 

(thumbs u

 

Admittedly I wrote my post without checking the latest coin prices. Does this include the comparison of graded vs ungraded coins? And was fraud pretty prevalent in the 80s or did that come later (the double stamping and false, what do you call the rainbow affect on silver coins that's all the rage)

 

I imagine with the dramatic rise in silver and gold, that coins have mirrored that and then some.

 

Ed

[seanfingh]

it wasn't intended to be an exhaustive treatise

 

[the blob]

I I assume they were NM (9.2) prices.

 

No, those prices were for MINT books!

 

...

 

I was actually thinking those were restored 5.0 prices

 

 

Just pointing out that "NM" and "9.2" were unknown concepts back in 1983. "NM" maybe, but 9.2 fo sho.

 

(thumbs u

 

NM was commonly used in 1983, and long before. As loose as grading was back then, it was clear that most books, even nice ones, were short of actual Mint. NM- (9.2) was pretty much unheard of, though people did use +/- grades ( mostly just +) and split grades, but NM- was probably splitting the hair between VF/NM and NM too thin.

 

Please note the qualified statement in the second sentence. (thumbs u

 

Even as late as the mid 90's there was debate in the letter pages of CBM as too whether both +/- grades and split grades should be used or just one or the other.

 

.

 

The acceptance of the term "Near Mint" took place slowly over the course of the 1980's. OPG didn't begin to use "NM" officially as the top price in the guide until 1989; prior to then, "NM" was the exception in use, rather than the rule, despite being included in the 8 "point" grading system in the OPG since the mid 70's. These days, "mint" is the exception nomenclature, and "NM" the rule; back in the late 70's/early 80's, those roles were reversed. "NM", like VG and VF, weren't often used on a widespread basis.

 

In fact, I remember as late as 1989/1990 dealers referring to books as "mint" condition (despite the OPG acknowledging that "NM" was better nomenclature) and disdaining the use of "Near Mint" as meaningless qualifying.

 

My comment was just to clarify my tongue-in-cheek remark; it wasn't intended to be an exhaustive treatise on when and how grading nomenclature came to be (though I'm perfectly up for that, if you'd like......).

 

(thumbs u

 

----------------

 

my recollection is different. "mint" was considered some practically impossible condition to achieve (as it is now). "NM" was supposed to be what a comic looked like fresh on the newstand. i remember having discussions with other comic nerds in grade school about these important topics (and assume OPG was the source of the idiocy), like when one buddy of mine claimed he found his father's early SA collection and said every book was "near mint" and I told him he was full of it. so we are talking about 1983 or earlier. maybe things were different on the west coast.

 

I will go dig up a SA daredevil I purchased in 1984 (maybe early 1985) where the show dealer was kind enough to write "NM" near the price indicia on the book (in pencil at least) to better assist his customers. (Needless to say, the book is and was nowhere near NM, but he got the NM price out of me! (I was not so good at bargaining then). Pretty sure I still have it somewhere. If I remember correctly that was the same show that mike carbonaro was kind enough to stop me and search every book I had purchased that day (from other dealers) to make sure I had not stolen from him.

[Hobo]

I I assume they were NM (9.2) prices.

 

No, those prices were for MINT books!

 

...

 

I was actually thinking those were restored 5.0 prices

 

 

Just pointing out that "NM" and "9.2" were unknown concepts back in 1983. "NM" maybe, but 9.2 fo sho.

 

(thumbs u

 

NM was commonly used in 1983, and long before. As loose as grading was back then, it was clear that most books, even nice ones, were short of actual Mint. NM- (9.2) was pretty much unheard of, though people did use +/- grades ( mostly just +) and split grades, but NM- was probably splitting the hair between VF/NM and NM too thin.

 

Please note the qualified statement in the second sentence. (thumbs u

 

Even as late as the mid 90's there was debate in the letter pages of CBM as too whether both +/- grades and split grades should be used or just one or the other.

 

.

 

The acceptance of the term "Near Mint" took place slowly over the course of the 1980's. OPG didn't begin to use "NM" officially as the top price in the guide until 1989; prior to then, "NM" was the exception in use, rather than the rule, despite being included in the 8 "point" grading system in the OPG since the mid 70's. These days, "mint" is the exception nomenclature, and "NM" the rule; back in the late 70's/early 80's, those roles were reversed. "NM", like VG and VF, weren't often used on a widespread basis.

 

In fact, I remember as late as 1989/1990 dealers referring to books as "mint" condition (despite the OPG acknowledging that "NM" was better nomenclature) and disdaining the use of "Near Mint" as meaningless qualifying.

 

My comment was just to clarify my tongue-in-cheek remark; it wasn't intended to be an exhaustive treatise on when and how grading nomenclature came to be (though I'm perfectly up for that, if you'd like......).

 

(thumbs u

 

----------------

 

my recollection is different. "mint" was considered some practically impossible condition to achieve (as it is now). "NM" was supposed to be what a comic looked like fresh on the newstand. i remember having discussions with other comic nerds in grade school about these important topics (and assume OPG was the source of the idiocy), like when one buddy of mine claimed he found his father's early SA collection and said every book was "near mint" and I told him he was full of it. so we are talking about 1983 or earlier. maybe things were different on the west coast.

 

I will go dig up a SA daredevil I purchased in 1984 (maybe early 1985) where the show dealer was kind enough to write "NM" near the price indicia on the book (in pencil at least) to better assist his customers. (Needless to say, the book is and was nowhere near NM, but he got the NM price out of me! (I was not so good at bargaining then). Pretty sure I still have it somewhere. If I remember correctly that was the same show that mike carbonaro was kind enough to stop me and search every book I had purchased that day (from other dealers) to make sure I had not stolen from him.

 

$5 says he tried to sell you something you had no interest in immediately after that.

[GreatEscape]

 

I was a freshman in college in January 1983. People thought 10K for a comic was the highest price you'd ever see.

 

Precisely. I recall in the early 80s when Marvel Comics #1 (OPG's top book at the time) reached $10k in the guide and that seemed like enough to buyout my LCS inventory!

 

Aside from the CGC effect, condition spreads and "premium to guide" pricing, another consideration has to be the change in transaction costs. Back then, without eBay or auctions, collectors had to consider a 25-40% discounts to OPG for selling books (worse for bulk) at local comic shops/shows so even if your books appreciated 50%, you'd still clear only 10-15% gain if you sold. Today, collectors can sell for 10% at auctions, 5-8% fees on eBay and free via Forum or networking on the internet. In 10 years, transaction costs will migrate to zero and values will reflect this.

 

I believe social networking will impact collectibles in a bigger way 10 years from now. Sellers would be able to quickly 'network' to find the natural/highest buyer that has the potential of making weekly auctions obsolete-- we'll still have premium auctions for bigger books. In that case, HG, highly desirables and keys will continue to appreciate faster than the overall market. In the same way, buyers will be better able to 'network' to locate/acquire books owned by other collectors. We'll may even have credit payment systems among collectors that will be faster, more covenient and less costly than Paypal. I can't predict what/how technology will facilitate this...I just know it's coming.

 

[fantastic_four]

In 10 years, transaction costs will migrate to zero and values will reflect this.

 

That seems impossible...that'd have to be directly from collector to collector with nobody in the middle, and I can't imagine a technology that will prevent that relationship from being ripe with opportunity for fraud. I don't see how technology will obsolete consignment given human nature.

[GreatEscape]

In 10 years, transaction costs will migrate to zero and values will reflect this.

 

That seems impossible...that'd have to be directly from collector to collector with nobody in the middle, and I can't imagine a technology that will prevent that relationship from being ripe with opportunity for fraud. I don't see how technology will obsolete consignment given human nature.

 

...see "Forum Only Selling Area" but think 50x larger network (ie, eBay bidders) and more global.

 

I agree that fraud will always be an issue, but that existed with mail order back in the 80s, the early eBay days, and I'd imagine the start of tomorrow's technologies.

[the blob]

nah, he just creeped me out. i sold the bulk of my brother's remaining SA collection that day (mostly early ASM beaters) to random show attendees (who figured they were getting a good deal if buying from a kid)...you know, like $10 for Spidey 5, actually not bad prices. beat to heck was like 10-20% of the NM price apparently back then. i figured i'd get on his good side by selling the stuff for him and he was psyched when i came home with a big pile of money, which no doubt he promptly spent on beer and pot afterward.

[500Club]

it wasn't intended to be an exhaustive treatise

 

 

Custom title material.

 

Mods notified.

 

[fantastic_four]

In 10 years, transaction costs will migrate to zero and values will reflect this.

 

That seems impossible...that'd have to be directly from collector to collector with nobody in the middle, and I can't imagine a technology that will prevent that relationship from being ripe with opportunity for fraud. I don't see how technology will obsolete consignment given human nature.

 

...see "Forum Only Selling Area" but think 50x larger network (ie, eBay bidders) and more global.

 

I agree that fraud will always be an issue, but that existed with mail order back in the 80s, the early eBay days, and I'd imagine the start of tomorrow's technologies.

 

You can't trust people in the forums here as much as you can trust Heritage, ComicLink, or Pedigree because they've always got the option to just disappear at any time if their primary profession isn't comics. The core solution for fraud has been around for thousands of years, and I haven't seen anything in technology that will circumvent it--the vested interest of a professional to not defraud his customers so they'll continue to come back to him. It's the entire reason consignment works, because you know the consignor is motivated to not tick off his customers so he can keep doing business. You can debate the ethics of the consignment houses, but there's virtually no risk that they'll keep your money and you won't get your books, whereas that's an ever-present risk in person-to-person deals.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible for technology to give us a new and more trustworthy market metaphor, I just haven't seen the slightest evidence of it, so the odds of it happening are long within a decade or two.

[500Club]

In 10 years, transaction costs will migrate to zero and values will reflect this.

 

That seems impossible...that'd have to be directly from collector to collector with nobody in the middle, and I can't imagine a technology that will prevent that relationship from being ripe with opportunity for fraud. I don't see how technology will obsolete consignment given human nature.

 

Gotta agree. Witness the evolution of eBay from internet flea market with miniscule fees to corporate giant with fees comparable to other consignment sites.