• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The 'fallacy' of the supposed 'rule of 25.'

Started by mintcollector,

54 posts in this topic

mintcollector

mintcollector

Posted
Posted

I was originally going to post this on the weekend when I had more time, but someone (a forum member) actually found the thread and posted a link to it (in another one of my threads). This analysis was done by someone I highly respect in the antiques and collectibles industry.

 

First, note that this article is written by Harry Rinker. I cannot stress enough how many of you should be reading his articles, visiting his website, and buying his books. He is one of the true greats in the industry and a pioneer.

 

I also would like to recommend anyone getting a subscription to worth point. This is a premier antiques and collectibles website and I have met many associates there who already know who I am and have done business with me. Ironically, I believe you can never have too much knowledge, so I am happy to share my knowledge; while learning from other people at the same time.

 

Here is the 'link:'

 

http://www.worthpoint.com/blog-entry/rinker-collectibles-flaw-rule-25

 

Respectfully,

 

'mint'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatsby77

Gatsby77

Posted
Posted

Honest question here--why post this in Bronze when 25 years ago = 1987 = Solidly Coppper?

 

Also, out of 20 paragraphs that Rinker article contains exactly three sentences related to comic books, with no metrics to either support or refute his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mintcollector

mintcollector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Honest question here--why post this in Bronze when 25 years ago = 1987 = Solidly Coppper?

 

Also, out of 20 paragraphs that Rinker article contains exactly three sentences related to comic books, with no metrics to either support or refute his claims.

 

And I will gladly answer honesty. First, the conversation that started a lot of the commentary that led to this issue; was in fact started in the 'bronze age' forum. Please see the other posts related to similar ideologies and comments on this; posted throughout this forum and the like.

 

Second, I believe your other questions should be geared towards the author of the article and not me; as I did not write this. We have talked about the supposed 'rule of 25' and all its 'controversies' to death on this WHOLE forum; whether it be about toys, games, pop culture based items, and of course comic books. Your statement that only about three sentences refers to comic books would be only affirmed if this whole forum talked about ONLY comic books (may I rermind you of various 'threads' about video games; Magic the Gathering cards, and the like?) Unfortunately, we know that is not the case and even in 'Comic General' there have been 'threads' started by well respected members of this community asking us to limit the amount of non-comic related discussions we have. This issue is DIRECTLY related to comic books whether we all want to admit it or not.

 

Whether you choose to accept the article in question is your decision. I can do no more or less to facilitate a more intelligent discussion on the matter. Many experts have dismissed the 'fallacy' of this supposed 'rule.' Many still don't think it exists. This article was written directly about it; thus making it a valid point of discussion.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mintcollector

mintcollector

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Quick Note: This article is now appearing on several other sites with market commentary and thus far every comment posted has been in sole agreement with this article and the validity of the intelligent discussion it constitutes. As a result, I will post 'links' to the updated websites for further analysis as they become available. Thes websites also provide an invaluable resource to ALL collectors as they provide commentary and analysis on the state of the WHOLE antiques and collectibles market.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike's Rack

Mike's Rack

Posted
Posted

Ok I'll step into this one. I'm on the fence about the "rule". The problem as I see it is that the criticism of the rule amounts to a straw man argument because i don't see any proponents of the rule arguing from a well thought out position. Most proponents speak from anacdotal evidence and allow their opponents to frame the debate. When detractors of the rule speak they define the rule as - "if something was popular then 25 years later it will be popular in collectable circles.". However, I have never heard proponents of the rule define it this way (and for good reason because this position is full of holes). If that is in fact the rule then I agree with the detractors. However if the rule is this - "Generally, the value of a collectable will peak approximately 25 years after its peak popularity unless it becomes ingrained in collectable culture" then I think I could get on board.

 

Are there any proponents of the rule that would be willing to step in and define the rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mintcollector

mintcollector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Thanks for the link. Rinker writes well.

 

No problem. If you ever get a chance, check out his website. Worth Point also showcases a lot of his articles (as well as many others).

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mintcollector

mintcollector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Ok I'll step into this one. I'm on the fence about the "rule". The problem as I see it is that the criticism of the rule amounts to a straw man argument because i don't see any proponents of the rule arguing from a well thought out position. Most proponents speak from anacdotal evidence and allow their opponents to frame the debate. When detractors of the rule speak they define the rule as - "if something was popular then 25 years later it will be popular in collectable circles.". However, I have never heard proponents of the rule define it this way (and for good reason because this position is full of holes). If that is in fact the rule then I agree with the detractors. However if the rule is this - "Generally, the value of a collectable will peak approximately 25 years after its peak popularity unless it becomes ingrained in collectable culture" then I think I could get on board.

 

Are there any proponents of the rule that would be willing to step in and define the rule?

 

The problem I have with a position like this (and the article explains this perfectly) is that after 1980 we became a 'collector conscious' culture and almost everything was saved. This is even further confirmed by the speculator crazes of the 1990's affecting both comic books and sports cards. Everyone saved everything and still does, while manufacturer's happy to appease the newfound buyer's (i.e. economies of scale at work) continue to make more and more of the 'said' items.

 

This is explained not only by the article, but by the various comments posted under the article as well. Any auction house will confirm this belief. This is why you often hear stories of, 'If only I would have known to save....' Today, as a result, everything is being saved. This in turn will ensure that items being hoarded now end up like most common 'drek' 1990's comic books.

 

There will always be items that have low production runs and slip through the proverbial cracks. That being said, you would be far better off putting your money into something collectible that is already coveted, or in a sound investment or bank account, than 'speculating' on any of these items. This is what the article dictates perfectly as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted

I'm honestly surprised that of person of Harry Rinker's status is giving credence to the Rule of 25.

 

It's a little like discussing the Curse of 27 Club. These "rules" or "curses" are created from crazy, goofy ideas that are sprung from over-active imaginations and an inability to accept random experiences in life that don't fit into factual explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mintcollector

mintcollector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm honestly surprised that of person of Harry Rinker's status is giving credence to the Rule of 25.

 

It's a little like discussing the Curse of 27 Club. These "rules" or "curses" are created from crazy, goofy ideas that are sprung from over-active imaginations and an inability to accept random experiences in life that don't fit into factual explanations.

 

And I would agree. That being said, a lot of these supposed 'rules' start on a forum or message board and before you know it everyone thinks they are 'gospel.' He addresses a lot of great issues on his website and in various other articles as well.

 

I won't rehash what he wrote in this particular article, but a lot of my earlier posts mirror these points exactly. It is truly 'spot' on.

 

I would encourage anyone who has yet to do so to check out his website. While some of the articles can be about specific antiques, most do have solid principles that can be applied to any collecting field (his books also touch on these topics as well). That being said, when I started learning the business many years ago, my mentors indroduced me to his ideologies as being 'gospel.' Most of these principles have been 'drilled' into my head and I can honestly say that this has helped give me the 'edge' I need.

 

Check out his latest articles on his website that deal with collecting categories that are 'dying off' and the article on the changes in the industry. It is truly astounding.

 

Respectfully,

 

'mint'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing