The 'Thirty Year Rule': Agree of Disagree?

[Dr. Balls]

"....ASM 129 were all regarded as keys within a decade of them coming out"

 

Took a little longer than that with Punisher, though I do not know why.

 

The Punisher blew up due to the Limited Series in 1986.

 

I was around 12/13 and collecting when that came out. Zeck's unbelievably cool airbrushed covers sold those books. Me and my friends loooooooooved that series.

[chrisco37]

"....ASM 129 were all regarded as keys within a decade of them coming out"

 

Took a little longer than that with Punisher, though I do not know why.

 

The Punisher blew up due to the Limited Series in 1986.

 

Fun Fact: The Punisher LS #1 was initially worth more in OS than ASM 129.

 

I remember that. The first OS I had was the Superman 50th anniversay edition. I think #129 was maybe a $25-30 book and the LS was more.

 

It wasn't until the following year (Batman cover) that #129 took a pretty good jump and surpassed the LS books (IIRC). I think #129 jumped to $75 in that edition.

 

Certainly one of the largest price corrections (double) that OS ever made that I can remember.

[Gatsby77]

Punisher Limited 1 was still a hot "wall book" when I started collecting back in 1989-90.

 

Glad I didn't pay $50 for it then, as "NM" likely would have equated to "9.4" today and now goes for less in a post-Ebay CGC-dominant world.

[joe_collector]

I remember that. The first OS I had was the Superman 50th anniversay edition. I think #129 was maybe a $25-30 book and the LS was more.

 

Actually, I was referring to a bit before that, maybe 86-87, where ASM 129 was around $7 and the Punisher Limited Series was $10 - again, these are rough estimates, as I don't have time to go back to a 1986/87 OS Update.

[Gatsby77]

On Overstreet increases, the biggest one I know of was when Harbinger 1 tripled from $15 to $45 in 90 days--from one quarterly Overstreet's Update to the next.

 

The Overstreet Updates also had a misprint once where X-Factor # 52 spiked from $3.50 to $8.00 due to the Sabretooth appearance--this was right after Iron First 14 started skyrocketing. I bought all the X-Factor 52s I could find in the $.50 bins, only to see it back at $3.50 with the others around it the next quarter.

[Define999]

By the way, the reason I call the supposed 'rule of 25'; the 'ideology of 25' is because I don't believe it either. The 'rule of 30' is NOT my idea, but it was created by someone I highly respect as noted.

 

Did you even read the article in question?

 

He's stating a really basic factor of any collectible field - that after 30 years we will all have a better idea of an item's value going forward than we did in the preceding years.

 

Well DUH! And grass is green and the sky is blue.

 

I understand and agree with this, but I think going forword the amount of time it takes is being condensed because of information technology... I think true value not specualtive value will be wiggled out for informed collectors in all hobbies much much sooner... my

[Hamlet]

What I loved about the Limited Series was that the 4th issue said 4 of 4 on the cover, so we all thought it was the last one.

 

We read it, and it didn't really finish the story, so we thought it was just a terrible ending for the series. Everything made more sense when the 5th book showed up a month later.

 

 

"....ASM 129 were all regarded as keys within a decade of them coming out"

 

Took a little longer than that with Punisher, though I do not know why.

 

The Punisher blew up due to the Limited Series in 1986.

 

I was around 12/13 and collecting when that came out. Zeck's unbelievably cool airbrushed covers sold those books. Me and my friends loooooooooved that series.

[mintcollector]

By the way, the reason I call the supposed 'rule of 25'; the 'ideology of 25' is because I don't believe it either. The 'rule of 30' is NOT my idea, but it was created by someone I highly respect as noted.

 

Did you even read the article in question?

 

He's stating a really basic factor of any collectible field - that after 30 years we will all have a better idea of an item's value going forward than we did in the preceding years.

 

Well DUH! And grass is green and the sky is blue.

 

Yes, that is the whole point. I quoted the 'thirty year rule' to directly comment on whether the community as a whole found worthwhile validation of the rule in question. I ONLY posted a link to the article for two reasons. Number one, to ensure proper credit was given to the author of the chosen rule and, number two; to respond to inquiries about where it could be found and what OTHER articles the author has published. This was done because I received several private messages and emails from members wanting to learn more. If you click on the link leading to 'other articles' (on the website where the article is located)you will see well over one hundred (if not more) articles on the antiques and collectibles industry and business at large. This is a great information for anyone who collects, invests, or deals. I did NOT post the link to the article to recite a rule that I already published; while giving proper credit to the author. The second post I made in reference to the question asked, demonstrates the reasoning rationally.

 

My second response to your inquiry involves how far we can literally take this discussion. I only have a total of close to 800 posts in a four year span and this is spread across the currency collecting forum (PMG), the coin collecting forums (NGC), and of course, ALL of the CGC forums. I literally only have time to post very little and when I make a statement or post.; I will debate it for a little while if needs be and then move on. I also choose to debate individuals who show a little more respect than what you originally gave me. Pointing out as to why I posted an article leading to a 'rule' that was NOT written by me; because other individuals asked about the website in question, is not a rational action to criticize. This tells me you may just want to argue with me rather than the issue at hand. There are a lot of people on this forum (please read my previous posts on speculation and 'investment' within ALL collecting categories) who DO regularly 'speculate' and 'invest' in items that I would not touch. Even as a dealer of antiques and collectibles I always try to avoid the hype and focus on items that are already proven worthy of time, money, and if one so chooses; 'investment.' The only area I deal in that could cause criticism in this regard is video games and related pop culture items that are bought for a 'quick flip.' This of course; is not including what I personally choose to collect, whether it be for enjoyment or investment.

 

In conclusion, I was always criticized by my associates and fellow members of the antiques and collectibles trade for always answering honestly when someone asks 'Is this a good item to invest in?' I was always told by my mentors and the like that people in general ONLY learn from their mistakes and not by their successes. I am starting to agree. That being said, 'JoeCollector'; we do agree on thing, it does not appear we agree on the 'rule of 25.' For this, I agree 100%.

 

Respectfully,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

[chrisco37]

I remember that. The first OS I had was the Superman 50th anniversay edition. I think #129 was maybe a $25-30 book and the LS was more.

 

Actually, I was referring to a bit before that, maybe 86-87, where ASM 129 was around $7 and the Punisher Limited Series was $10 - again, these are rough estimates, as I don't have time to go back to a 1986/87 OS Update.

 

I'm sure you're correct. I was just relaying my experience. The OSPG I referenced was the first price guide I ever had, so I don't know what took place before it.

 

It may have even been that way with regards to Wolverine as well (where the LS was close in price to the 1st app). Pretty sure that Hulk 181 took a big jump from the Superman OSPG to the following year. I don't have those old OSPG's to check.

[RedGiant]

While I don't have any of the OS Updates, I can tell you in the OSPG 16 - ASM 129 in 'mint' was $2 - Punisher #1 was $1.50. Next issue - 17 - ASM was $14, Punisher was $5.50. Today - GPA 9.8 - $4800 for the ASM, $200 for the Punisher. Not a bad ROI on that ASM book!

[Gatsby77]

Except--apples and oranges: "mint" back inn OSPG 16-17 would equate to OSPG NM- today, or a 9.2 value of $925 today vs. $25 for the Punisher.

 

Still a good ROI, but it's disingenuous to switch metrics (OSPG vs. GPA, let alone OSPG 1980s "mint" vs. GPA 2012 9.8) in mid-stream.

 

Very very few of those "mint" ASM 129s back then would have hit CGC 9.8, let alone remain/survive in that condition today.

[RedGiant]

Except--apples and oranges: "mint" back inn OSPG 16-17 would equate to OSPG NM- today, or a 9.2 value of $925 today vs. $25 for the Punisher.

 

Still a good ROI, but it's disingenuous to switch metrics (OSPG vs. GPA, let alone OSPG 1980s "mint" vs. GPA 2012 9.8) in mid-stream.

 

Very very few of those "mint" ASM 129s back then would have hit CGC 9.8, let alone remain/survive in that condition today.

Agreed.

[vaillant]

All comic books are inherently speculative--as they are designed as pop entertainment, there's little inherent value.

 

Maybe I haven’t been reading comics for the last 30+ years, or we are talking of entirely different things.

[mintcollector]

All comic books are inherently speculative--as they are designed as pop entertainment, there's little inherent value.

 

Maybe I haven’t been reading comics for the last 30+ years, or we are talking of entirely different things.

 

All that we are stating is that comics, like all items of a collectible nature, are 'speculative.' Some may be better long term 'bets' than others, but their value can easily go to zero, as they have no inherent value. These are not precious metals we are referring to. The same can be said of most collectibles (if not all), and a general 'rule' is that the younger the collectible, the more speculative it is. This is why a Walking Dead #1 is a more speculative bet than an AF 15.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

[500Club]

All comic books are inherently speculative--as they are designed as pop entertainment, there's little inherent value.

 

Maybe I haven’t been reading comics for the last 30+ years, or we are talking of entirely different things.

 

All that we are stating is that comics, like all items of a collectible nature, are 'speculative.' Some may be better long term 'bets' than others, but their value can easily go to zero, as they have no inherent value. These are not precious metals we are referring to.

Using this logic, the term 'speculative' can be applied to the value of almost anything beyond food, water and shelter. Even paper money is speculative in that it relies on its decreed value.

 

I prefer to use speculative in a sense that implies higher levels of risk. That is the standard use of the term.

[mintcollector]

All comic books are inherently speculative--as they are designed as pop entertainment, there's little inherent value.

 

Maybe I haven’t been reading comics for the last 30+ years, or we are talking of entirely different things.

 

All that we are stating is that comics, like all items of a collectible nature, are 'speculative.' Some may be better long term 'bets' than others, but their value can easily go to zero, as they have no inherent value. These are not precious metals we are referring to.

Using this logic, the term 'speculative' can be applied to the value of almost anything beyond food, water and shelter. Even paper money is speculative in that it relies on its decreed value.

 

I prefer to use speculative in a sense that implies higher levels of risk. That is the standard use of the term.

 

Some of my favorite movie quotes of all time are from the Wall Street movies. One of my favorite lines was presented in the sequel:

 

'Speculation is the mother of all evils.' (obviously said by Gordon Gekko).

 

I think this applies nicely to the current collectibles market.

[500Club]

Which market?

[PeterPark]

only down to page 4...

[mintcollector]

only down to page 4...

 

You are aware that the rule of 25 and the rule of 30 are completely different rules, correct?

 

One states until 30 years of an item's life it's value is subjective. The other states that possibly within 25 years an item may become collectible due to nostalgia.

 

 

 

 

[Underground44]

One of the problems I have with this rule is: When does the 30 years start?

 

Take something iconic such as The Simpsons for instance. It's been on television all over the world for 25 years and also sells tons of merchandise, toys, comic books etc. and a movie has been made. Does the 30 year rule kick in when the show first started or when it eventually finishes - or both? It's confusing to say the least because Some things span a couple of generations.