1985-1989 Coin Market = 2000-2004 Comic Market?

[Rip]

Whoops I mean CGC

[OldGuy]

People that truly don't care, read this thread, laugh and then pass right on by.

 

[Foolkiller]

Wow... this thread goes on and on and back and forth. But it seems to hit on the same topic with a new spin or a different analogy.

 

Look, I definitely think that there's something very wrong with the high grade comics market. There's a number of things including the speculation of the cleaning and pressing, the outrageous multiples paid for books and the drive and obsession that this small sector of the hobby is being consumed by greed and money. This is not to imply that if you are a high grade collector you are greedy, but rather to label this particular situation for what it is.

 

For those of you disputing Gene's theory, let me again remind you that Gene's opinions are generally backed up by DATA and far too often I see statements made that is based solely in their own guesswork and speculation. That's not to say those people's opinions are wrong, but they are more susceptible to wide open debate that goes nowhere.

 

I agree with Gene insofar as I would be very, very uncomfortable putting money that I needed or cared about into comics. I would not invest, and would not even put large amounts of disposable income into high grade. I would lessen my spending in comics back issues in general and pare down to only select keys (in whatever grade you like) because they are in essence the most important books.

 

BUT, let me say that while I agree fundamentally with what Gene is saying, I think the implication is "everyone get their money out while they still can otherwise you're a f--king insufficiently_thoughtful_person". That I disagree with. Unfortunately, part of what comes with being very intelligent (you want to dispute that Gene is very, very bright go ahead, but I'll bluntly tell you you're wrong) is that there's sometimes an arrogance attached with it that you are absolutely right and everyone must agree with you otherwise they won't be following the "correct" course. This has been implied elsewhere in this thread. Bottom line is that people can collect what they want, and spend the money the way they want. Where I mainly disagree with Gene is that if people are spending entertainment dollars on comics, and not their kids college funds, then it is not important how they spend their disposable income. Nobody complains if you down two 12 packs in a week (now that's money you'll never see again), you just say, I think it's a waste. how about smokers? You blow $4 every two days on cigs? you're crazy! People want to spend crazy multiples on HG keys and ASMs? go ahead. as for me, I'm not going to do it. I'm not comfortable with it and it's not fun. But that's me

[delekkerste]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I'm "arrogant" and act like I'm "intellectually superior"? I get that feeling almost every time I read one of your posts. You've done a fair amount of mud-slinging and name-calling in my direction on this thread alone - don't pretend like you're taking the moral high ground.

 

This whole theory of yours with its ridicuously absent level of supporting evidence and analysis wouldn't get a D+ if it were an actual market analysis submitted in a college level econ course.

 

This is just laughable - I think I'm just a little bit more qualified than you are in determining what would and wouldn't get a D+ in a college-level econ course, Counselor. Just because you don't agree with me, don't pretend like you can make ridiculous claims like this and get away with it - you're only weakening your already paper-thin argument.

 

Gene

[FFB]

Thanks Gene. Exactly what I expected from you. You can go back to your discussion now.

 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I'm "arrogant" and act like I'm "intellectually superior"? I get that feeling almost every time I read one of your posts. You've done a fair amount of mud-slinging and name-calling in my direction on this thread alone - don't pretend like you're taking the moral high ground.

 

This whole theory of yours with its ridicuously absent level of supporting evidence and analysis wouldn't get a D+ if it were an actual market analysis submitted in a college level econ course.

 

This is just laughable - I think I'm just a little bit more qualified than you are in determining what would and wouldn't get a D+ in a college-level econ course, Counselor. Just because you don't agree with me, don't pretend like you can make ridiculous claims like this and get away with it - you're only weakening your already paper-thin argument.

 

Gene

[delekkerste]

I'm glad we understand each other.

[comicwiz]

The investor in these discussions is not referring to flippers (i.e. gman), dealers that buy wholesale and sell retail (Metro), or in your example someone who might find a copy and buy it at full guide, knowing very well that full guide is out of whack with the market (like the 35-cent variants). You're dealing with a small, niche market with underground books, but to relate it to something I collect, I'll buy every copy of Captain Aero 26, Contact 12, or Captain Flight 11 you have at full guide in any condition all day long...got any?

 

Sorry MIke, I don't.

 

The example of undervalued comics, specifcally ones that are grossly misrepresented in guides and that are well below their "true" market value, seem to attract a tremendous level of interest. The sheer demand for such books often comes in the way of properly assessing a "fair" market value, and in some cases, due to the amount of competition for such books, paying "stupid" money for a copy is commonplace. Is this a bad investment? If so, why? And in the face of a market taking a nose-dive, how would you quantify "loss" if your purchase prices were a multiple or two of the guide price? Moreover, why couldn't the kind of buying behaviour you mention (in your case, buying every copy of Captain Aero 26, etc; and in mind, buying every copy of Zap 1) be considered a form of entertainment cost?

 

One things for certain. It is far easier for someone to stand their ground, and lay claim after claim, in the face of tumultous loss, that their collecting habits are rooted in good art, story, and commitment to collecting. It appears that the crash theorists are having a field day, arriving at the conclusion that anyone who spends "stupid" money on a comic is making an "investment", and a bad one at that. I'm not particularly fond of this form of blanket categorization. I collect underground comix, and quite frankly, that should speak enough on my abandoning any notions of conformity, and/or a herd-mentality.

[sterlingcomics]

Definitely words I live by NOW, Rip. Live and Learn.

 

delekkerste and FFB....

[Aman619]

football, not that I dont agree with your exasperation at this point...but Gene's made more cogent and lengthy evaluations and arguments in this vein before. So dont judge his research and market analysis skills by this thread alone.

 

But I'm waiting for a different conclusion cause Ive heard all this before!!! I can sing this tune in my sleep already...

[Timely]

Here's a positive. Buy and collect what you like. If your book drops in value does your appreciation for it also drop? If so then you are more of an investor than a collector.

 

Collect what pleases you and you can't go wrong, no matter what else is going on in your life.

 

Timely

[PUNYHUMAN]

Here's a positive. Buy and collect what you like. If your book drops in value does your appreciation for it also drop? If so then you are more of an investor than a collector.

 

Collect what pleases you and you can't go wrong, no matter what else is going on in your life.

 

Timely

Sounds good to me!!!!

[sterlingcomics]

Thanks. I definitely buy what I like, that's my problem I know what I like isn't 'investment' material (although a lot of it is 'investment grade' as Metropolis would say) and that's fine for me.

 

A lot of doom and gloom here lately...it's kinda dragging me down.

[LordRahl]

You know Gene, you make some valid points and some that I completely disagree with. Nothing wrong with that, everyone is entitled to an opinion. My biggest problem with the crash threads and theories is that none of the crash proponents will step up and define the alleged "crash". What books will crash? By how much? When? etc. etc. If you define the crash by saying that the DD 131 9.8 that sold recently for, what was it, around $3500, will drop by 30-50% in the next 5 years, then I agree with you. If you define the crash as an across the board drop of 30-50% on all books in all grades, then I disagree. The crux of the problem is that everyone is arguing about the crash based on their own assumptions and definitions of what the carsh is. Those definitions are likely very different from person to person. Until you and JC, being the strongest voices for a crash, define this crash you will really never get anywhere with your arguments. There's too much ambiguity in the arguments that you and JC make. This of course helps your argument because you can never be proven wrong. For example, if the crash threads from last summer had predicted a sharp drop in prices on 9.4+ Bronze books within the next year, they'd already be proven wrong. If you bought high grade books last summer, not only have you not lost money but you've likely made money if you sold over the last couple of months. But of course the argument is that an undefined crash will happen at some time. How can anyone rationally argue with this? I've tried to stay away from these threads lately but I thought I'd give you my take on why you find it difficult to get your point across to some people.

[drbanner]

Sorry MIke, I don't.

 

Oh well, keep your eyes open for me!

 

 

The example of undervalued comics, specifcally ones that are grossly misrepresented in guides and that are well below their "true" market value, seem to attract a tremendous level of interest. The sheer demand for such books often comes in the way of properly assessing a "fair" market value, and in some cases, due to the amount of competition for such books, paying "stupid" money for a copy is commonplace. Is this a bad investment? If so, why? And in the face of a market taking a nose-dive, how would you quantify "loss" if your purchase prices were a multiple or two of the guide price? Moreover, why couldn't the kind of buying behaviour you mention (in your case, buying every copy of Captain Aero 26, etc; and in mind, buying every copy of Zap 1) be considered a form of entertainment cost?

 

One things for certain. It is far easier for someone to stand their ground, and lay claim after claim, in the face of tumultous loss, that their collecting habits are rooted in good art, story, and commitment to collecting. It appears that the crash theorists are having a field day, arriving at the conclusion that anyone who spends "stupid" money on a comic is making an "investment", and a bad one at that. I'm not particularly fond of this form of blanket categorization. I collect underground comix, and quite frankly, that should speak enough on my abandoning any notions of conformity, and/or a herd-mentality.

 

I think you have me confused with those that are telling others they are "foolishly investing" in funny books, I'm not. I asked the question in my first post on this thread b/c I wanted to know who Gene was directing this at:

 

If you think today's Bronze/Moderns are rare enough to be investment assets or if you think your precious Golden/Silver Age comics can weather any decline...for any Pollyannas hoping that the graded coin market suddenly got hunky-dory right after the article was written...

 

Are these real people, real board members, or is he referring to "comicinvestors" in a generic sense?

 

I don't pretend to know the motivations of others, and I certainly won't pass judgement on their financial decisions. Now, I personally don't think comics are a good investment, but I don't criticize those that do (and the fact is, comics HAVE been a good investment for the last 40 years) and the lack of "investment potential" hasn't stopped me from buying a handful of 4-figure books with my discretionary income (aka entertainment cost) over the years.

 

As far as what's a bad investment and how you would quantify your loss, I would just sum the debits and the credits at the end of the day. And if you don't ever sell your books but rather, derive personal satisfaction and enjoyment from owning them, then on my balance sheet your "investment" is priceless!

[Darthdiesel]

People that truly don't care, read this thread, laugh and then pass right on by.

 

How do you know me so well?

[delekkerste]

LordRahl:

 

Forecasting is, by its nature, an inexact science, to say the least. Predicting the exact timing and magnitude of a major decline is not something that I, nor anybody else, is capable of doing. However, that does not mean that forecasting is futile. We can judge which scenarios have the highest probabilities and which ones we can rule out almost completely. This scenario whereby people can reap big riches by buying books that have already appreciated thousands of percentage points is, to me, an extremely low probability scenario - it is an unwritten law of nature that all parabolic rises must eventually correct - hard.

 

I do believe that virtually every book will be affected, even those supposedly bulletproof GA and pre-1965/1968 SA books that are supposed too desirable and rare to ever go down - even though the supply is fixed, you can lose money on anything if you pay too much in the first place. Forgive me if that sounds obvious, but a lot of people seem to have difficulty getting their arms around the difference between a highly desirable book and a highly desirable price. I do believe that truly rare and high quality material (no, that does not include the likes of DD #131 CGC 9.8) will fare the best and stand the best chance of rebounding the fastest and perhaps ultimately making new highs (as what happened with coins). A lot of other books may see their values eventually scythed in half or more with little hope of ever attaining their pre-decline highs. Some slabbed coins fell more than 90% from their peaks - that's usually what happens in the aftermath of any asset bubble.

 

Hopefully that clarifies my position a bit.

 

Gene

[davidking623]

LordRahl:

 

Forecasting is, by its nature, an inexact science, to say the least. Predicting the exact timing and magnitude of a major decline is not something that I, nor anybody else, is capable of doing. However, that does not mean that forecasting is futile. We can judge which scenarios have the highest probabilities and which ones we can rule out almost completely. This scenario whereby people can reap big riches by buying books that have already appreciated thousands of percentage points is, to me, an extremely low probability scenario - it is an unwritten law of nature that all parabolic rises must eventually correct - hard.

 

I do believe that virtually every book will be affected, even those supposedly bulletproof GA and pre-1965/1968 SA books that are supposed too desirable and rare to ever go down - even though the supply is fixed, you can lose money on anything if you pay too much in the first place. Forgive me if that sounds obvious, but a lot of people seem to have difficulty getting their arms around the difference between a highly desirable book and a highly desirable price. I do believe that truly rare and high quality material (no, that does not include the likes of DD #131 CGC 9.8) will fare the best and stand the best chance of rebounding the fastest and perhaps ultimately making new highs (as what happened with coins). A lot of other books may see their values eventually scythed in half or more with little hope of ever attaining their pre-decline highs. Some slabbed coins fell more than 90% from their peaks - that's usually what happens in the aftermath of any asset bubble.

 

Hopefully that clarifies my position a bit.

 

Gene

 

Gene and JC I sure wish we could dedicate a thread about doom and gloom of the comic book market so that it could stay there instead of every turn around the corner! Lets say call it THE CRASH OF THE COMIC BOOK MARKET AS DETERMINED BY THE COIN AND SPORTSCARD CRASHES AND THERE TENDENCIES!

 

Davidking623

[joe_collector]

I think the implication is "everyone get their money out while they still can otherwise you're a f--king insufficiently_thoughtful_person". That I disagree with.

 

Me too, but I think the message is more "don't leverage yourself to the ying-yang buying funny books".

[delekkerste]

Gene and JC I sure wish we could dedicate a thread about doom and gloom of the comic book market so that it could stay there instead of every turn around the corner! Lets say call it THE CRASH OF THE COMIC BOOK MARKET AS DETERMINED BY THE COIN AND SPORTSCARD CRASHES AND THERE TENDENCIES!

 

Davidking623

 

Uh, yeah...that's why I started this thread about the very subject you propose. If the subject matter disturbs your delicate sensibilities, just remember that nobody forced you to venture into this thread that, again, I started to discuss this very issue!

 

Gene

[joe_collector]

Gene and JC I sure wish we could dedicate a thread about doom and gloom of the comic book market so that it could stay there instead of every turn around the corner! Lets say call it THE CRASH OF THE COMIC BOOK MARKET AS DETERMINED BY THE COIN AND SPORTSCARD CRASHES AND THERE TENDENCIES!

 

Davidking623

 

Uh, yeah...that's why I started this thread about the very subject you propose. If the subject matter disturbs your delicate sensibilities, just remember that nobody forced you to venture into this thread that, again, I started to discuss this very issue!

 

Hmmmm, David gets his wish and he's still complaining?