The 'Thirty Year Rule': Agree of Disagree?

[mintcollector]

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.

 

This would have nothing to do with the television show, but more to do with the item itself.

 

In other words, from the day the item first appears on the market. Right now Lego sets are heating up the secondary market. This is due to the fact that some collectors erroneously believe that Lego only keeps a product on the shelf for around two years (what they forget is that popular sets are on the shelves for four years or more, and they do get rereleased).

Using this as an example, for the first thirty years of a set's life, it's value is speculative.

 

I do understand your question and see your point, however.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

[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.

 

This would have nothing to do with the television show, but more to do with the item itself.

 

In other words, from the day the item first appears on the market. Right now Lego sets are heating up the secondary market. This is due to the fact that some collectors erroneously believe that Lego only keeps a product on the shelf for around two years (what they forget is that popular sets are on the shelves for four years or more, and they do get rereleased).

Using this as an example, for the first thirty years of a set's life, it's value is speculative.

 

I do understand your question and see your point, however.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

Ok point taken.

 

What about something like TMNT though? Am I right in thinking that people that used to like the tv Cartoon are the ones that boosted the price on the comic books when they started to become nostalgic?

 

I think when people become nostalgic about certain times in their lives it's not always item specific.

Someone who grew up watching the Simpsons could now start playing the video games/buying figurines/buying comics because it gives them something to hold that reminds them of the past.

I think that it's more the brand rather than specific items that fuels peoples nostalgia. What's your thought on this?

 

Incidentally I do agree with the principles of the 30 year rule to a point. I just think that it's hard to pin down to specific items in some cases.

 

 

 

[mintcollector]

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.

 

This would have nothing to do with the television show, but more to do with the item itself.

 

In other words, from the day the item first appears on the market. Right now Lego sets are heating up the secondary market. This is due to the fact that some collectors erroneously believe that Lego only keeps a product on the shelf for around two years (what they forget is that popular sets are on the shelves for four years or more, and they do get rereleased).

Using this as an example, for the first thirty years of a set's life, it's value is speculative.

 

I do understand your question and see your point, however.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

Ok point taken.

 

What about something like TMNT though? Am I right in thinking that people that used to like the tv Cartoon are the ones that boosted the price on the comic books when they started to become nostalgic?

 

I think when people become nostalgic about certain times in their lives it's not always item specific.

Someone who grew up watching the Simpsons could now start playing the video games/buying figurines/buying comics because it gives them something to hold that reminds them of the past.

I think that it's more the brand rather than specific items that fuels peoples nostalgia. What's your thought on this?

 

Incidentally I do agree with the principles of the 30 year rule to a point. I just think that it's hard to pin down to specific items in some cases.

 

 

 

Aren't you looking at when a certain individual 'discovers' an item or interest that they like? This rule is 'item specific.' This means that an item released on the market today, will have a speculative life (value wise) for the first thirty years; according to that 'rule.'

 

Part of you post deals with the supposed rule of 25, which is commented in another post.

 

'mint'

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

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.

 

 

 

We also must talk about the rule of 75. This is when most of the collectors who collected pop culture characters 75 years ago are either dead or in nursing homes causing interest to wane in the characters they collected.

Examples are the majority of Roy Rogers,Zane Grey,Mutt & Jeff,Prince Valiant and Hopalong Cassiday collectors.

[PeterPark]

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.

 

 

 

 

They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, much of the speculation is due to uncertainty over the value due to nostalgia. If it lasts through several years of nostalgic interest there is a belief it has a more objective value. There is plenty overlap. And then there are things with objective value in less time. I know of some coins, for instance, that fall into this category.

[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.

 

 

 

 

They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, much of the speculation is due to uncertainty over the value due to nostalgia. If it lasts through several years of nostalgic interest there is a belief it has a more objective value. There is plenty overlap. And then there are things with objective value in less time. I know of some coins, for instance, that fall into this category.

 

Never said they were. In fact I didn't 'bump' this thread. The person who thought both ideologies were the same...did. This is why, I posted what I did, to show that they are different. Having similar traits is not the same.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

[RockMyAmadeus]

"....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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

"....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..

 

[Hepcat]

The only "rule" of collectibility by which I swear is that anything regarded as a hot collectible upon issue will prove to be a dud as an "investment". Quite simply, these are the things that are hoarded when first issued. That means that not only is demand (and therefore pricing) artificially inflated at issue, but due to the hoarding there will also be next to no destruction factor and as a result supply will never be constrained.

 

This of course doesn't mean that whatever was regarded as junk when issued will appreciate in price. Most of that will stay junk, but at least there will be a chance that some of it for reasons such as nostalgia won't be considered junk in decades to come and will appreciate in price due to shortages having developed.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

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.

 

This would have nothing to do with the television show, but more to do with the item itself.

 

In other words, from the day the item first appears on the market. Right now Lego sets are heating up the secondary market. This is due to the fact that some collectors erroneously believe that Lego only keeps a product on the shelf for around two years (what they forget is that popular sets are on the shelves for four years or more, and they do get rereleased).

Using this as an example, for the first thirty years of a set's life, it's value is speculative.

 

I do understand your question and see your point, however.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

Ok point taken.

 

What about something like TMNT though? Am I right in thinking that people that used to like the tv Cartoon are the ones that boosted the price on the comic books when they started to become nostalgic?

 

I think when people become nostalgic about certain times in their lives it's not always item specific.

Someone who grew up watching the Simpsons could now start playing the video games/buying figurines/buying comics because it gives them something to hold that reminds them of the past.

I think that it's more the brand rather than specific items that fuels peoples nostalgia. What's your thought on this?

 

Incidentally I do agree with the principles of the 30 year rule to a point. I just think that it's hard to pin down to specific items in some cases.

 

 

 

Aren't you looking at when a certain individual 'discovers' an item or interest that they like? This rule is 'item specific.' This means that an item released on the market today, will have a speculative life (value wise) for the first thirty years; according to that 'rule.'

 

Part of you post deals with the supposed rule of 25, which is commented in another post.

 

'mint'

 

Well according to his 30 year rule we can now say GI JOE, Masters of the Universe, and Transformers collectibles have gone from pretenders to now contenders.

[mintcollector]

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.

 

This would have nothing to do with the television show, but more to do with the item itself.

 

In other words, from the day the item first appears on the market. Right now Lego sets are heating up the secondary market. This is due to the fact that some collectors erroneously believe that Lego only keeps a product on the shelf for around two years (what they forget is that popular sets are on the shelves for four years or more, and they do get rereleased).

Using this as an example, for the first thirty years of a set's life, it's value is speculative.

 

I do understand your question and see your point, however.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

Ok point taken.

 

What about something like TMNT though? Am I right in thinking that people that used to like the tv Cartoon are the ones that boosted the price on the comic books when they started to become nostalgic?

 

I think when people become nostalgic about certain times in their lives it's not always item specific.

Someone who grew up watching the Simpsons could now start playing the video games/buying figurines/buying comics because it gives them something to hold that reminds them of the past.

I think that it's more the brand rather than specific items that fuels peoples nostalgia. What's your thought on this?

 

Incidentally I do agree with the principles of the 30 year rule to a point. I just think that it's hard to pin down to specific items in some cases.

 

 

 

Aren't you looking at when a certain individual 'discovers' an item or interest that they like? This rule is 'item specific.' This means that an item released on the market today, will have a speculative life (value wise) for the first thirty years; according to that 'rule.'

 

Part of you post deals with the supposed rule of 25, which is commented in another post.

 

'mint'

 

Well according to his 30 year rule we can now say GI JOE, Masters of the Universe, and Transformers collectibles have gone from pretenders to now contenders.

 

As stated, the thrity year rule has nothing to do with the price stability or future collectibility of anything. It merely states that 'for the first thirty years of anything's life; all value is speculative' (as stated by Harry Rinker; and paraphrased by myself).

 

That being said, if you read the article on the 'rule of 25' (and its fallacies) that I posted; it talks about multigenerational collectibility vs. one generation collectibility (i.e. The Lone Ranger, Western releated collectibles, etc.)

 

There are no price guarantees in the antiques and collectibles market. As I often say to people who tell me they paid 'XXX' amount for an item and need to sell it for that much; 'There is no troubled collectible asset relief program.'

Out of your examples stated, Masters of the Universe is the weakest 'property' of the three; as they have not relaunched the line on a massive scale to appeal to new collectors. Even the classic GI Joe in which I grew up (remember the awesome 80's cartoon?) is not the same; thanks in part to a movie that did not serve the products justice.

 

On a side note: I personally never liked Transformers. The cartoon was cool, but again; Hollywood has a way of 'changing' nostalgia for the worse sometimes.

 

I believe that these items will reach a plateau and possibly start to fall backwards within a decade or so. Many years ago (back in 1995 when ebay first premiered; remember auctionweb?); I could sell common Atari 2600 games for $5-$10 each. Now unless it is a rare or fairly uncommon game, you can't expect much. Another is Pez dispensers. People were paying big money in mid 1990's to early 2000's for Pez dispensers; before the market became a buyer's paradise. Yes, certain dispensers still fetch a premium, but again; it is a fallacy to look at the upper end of the market and assume it represents the overall market as a whole.

 

What happened? People wanted not only 70's items, but people also assumed these items were uncommon and collectible. Granted this happened a lot before the introduction of eBay (and the internet); but things can and do fall out of favor. As I said before, the aucthor of the article on the 'rule of 25' writes some spectacular articles on his website that I would encourage you to read. Read about linear vs. cyclical collecting categories. Read about how many collecting categories are dying off due to a lack of interest. This is what is important. Anyone can speculate; but facts are eternal.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'