Analysis and theory on ComicLink's August OA auction on OCAL...

[AKA Rick]

I think in some breaths, when people are talking about those "Key" pieces that currently command high dollar amounts today which were published 30+ years ago if in the 1980's and 50+ years ago if in the 1960's, which have seen leaps and bounds in their values increasing over the years... there's got to be some sort of speculation towards today's so called trash which will be tomorrow's treasure.

 

I think a lot of the current comic art collectors are in their late 30's to 60's, so an age group that might be able to afford to pay thousands if not tens of thousands for nostalgic artwork, of the stuff they grew up with.

 

If you look at today's collectors of The Walking Dead for example or Jim Lee's Batman "Hush", if the average time it takes for a young collector to economically mature is about 20-30 years, and where nostalgia kicks in... will there be renewed interest in some of the 90's "Bad Girl" art by Top Cow, Image, etc by currently established artists like Michael Turner, J. Scott Campbell, Marc Silvestri, etc. Not the dreg mediocre art (not naming names here) of unforgettable characters, but the stuff that has sustainable popularity either by artist or title, like Witchblade or Fathom for example.

 

And more so, if looking at artwork multiplying for future investment growth... Is it reasonable to say, it's harder to expect a currently priced $3,000 cover like something by Amanda Conner or Greg Land for example, to go up by 5x - 10x to $15,000-$30,000, where if you find a $300 cover by someone else, let's say Jenny Frison or Sean Chen to go up by 5x-10x to $1,500-3,000 in 10 or 20 years? Or more reasonably if you're looking to double on your investment.

 

So, there must be a population of artwork that's ripe for the pickings now that if stored away is that proverbial "it's gonna be the kid's college fund" or "pay for a new house" type return on investment.

 

Keeping in mind, from the level of scarcity, every piece of art is One-of-a-Kind, and the only thing that separates the value is that unique "supply vs demand" factor, not population or scarcity.

 

So, there's art out there being produced today that'll be the highlight of the Comic Link or Heritage Auctions of 2042 and beyond... I'm not sure who on the boards will be around and alive to bid on 'em 'tho...

[Terry Doyle]

I think in some breaths, when people are talking about those "Key" pieces that currently command high dollar amounts today which were published 30+ years ago if in the 1980's and 50+ years ago if in the 1960's, which have seen leaps and bounds in their values increasing over the years... there's got to be some sort of speculation towards today's so called trash which will be tomorrow's treasure.

 

I think a lot of the current comic art collectors are in their late 30's to 60's, so an age group that might be able to afford to pay thousands if not tens of thousands for nostalgic artwork, of the stuff they grew up with.

 

If you look at today's collectors of The Walking Dead for example or Jim Lee's Batman "Hush", if the average time it takes for a young collector to economically mature is about 20-30 years, and where nostalgia kicks in... will there be renewed interest in some of the 90's "Bad Girl" art by Top Cow, Image, etc by currently established artists like Michael Turner, J. Scott Campbell, Marc Silvestri, etc. Not the dreg mediocre art (not naming names here) of unforgettable characters, but the stuff that has sustainable popularity either by artist or title, like Witchblade or Fathom for example.

 

And more so, if looking at artwork multiplying for future investment growth... Is it reasonable to say, it's harder to expect a currently priced $3,000 cover like something by Amanda Conner or Greg Land for example, to go up by 5x - 10x to $15,000-$30,000, where if you find a $300 cover by someone else, let's say Jenny Frison or Sean Chen to go up by 5x-10x to $1,500-3,000 in 10 or 20 years? Or more reasonably if you're looking to double on your investment.

 

So, there must be a population of artwork that's ripe for the pickings now that if stored away is that proverbial "it's gonna be the kid's college fund" or "pay for a new house" type return on investment.

 

Keeping in mind, from the level of scarcity, every piece of art is One-of-a-Kind, and the only thing that separates the value is that unique "supply vs demand" factor, not population or scarcity.

 

So, there's art out there being produced today that'll be the highlight of the Comic Link or Heritage Auctions of 2042 and beyond... I'm not sure who on the boards will be around and alive to bid on 'em 'tho...

 

And what sort of sales figures are these books achieving? I was of the impression that comic-books, as being published today, were a dying breed.

[pinupcartoonguy]

The problem with the nostalgia thing is that is only works if you read comics as a kid. Nostalgia doesn't really attached to 30-somethings, which these days is the average age of comic book readers. Sure there are a few kids here or there who into comics because there fathers have educated them, but the vast majority of kids don't give a damn about Ditko or Kirby.

 

In essence, who will replace us as collectors? Also, has any pre-1950s art come close to approaching the amounts garnered by the likes of McFarlane and Ditko?

 

Another thing that some people have failed to mention regarding fine art v. comic art is the fact that museums are often time the big spender when it comes to fine art. At this point, I can't see the Met ponying up $500k for an image of Spidey uppercutting the Hulk in the nads.

[delekkerste]

One thing I have observed with the advent of the CGC collector is a lot of very short term focus.

 

Totally agree - this won't translate over well in the OA world. I wouldn't be surprised if there are comic guys who have already suffered losses trying to flip OA short-term.

 

Anyone want to trade?

 

Yup, it's like "I'll trade you two $50K cats for one $100K dog".

 

 

That's a great comparison. My wife tells me I should go buy a Dali for the house instead of OA. She said I can hang that in any room. Maybe the deals there are better.

 

Again, I don't know if fine art is a better investment than OA. It actually may very well not be, especially when you consider transaction costs. That said, if you're buying art to just enjoy and appreciate, I think most OA collectors are oblivious to what their budgets can actually buy in the fine art world these days.

 

 

I disagree with Gene, I think quality 60's marvel art is a good buy and will hold value.

 

Of course quality '60s Marvel art is among the most desirable and important. But, at what price? People are calling for more and more gains from here, but I think the jury is still out on whether demand is sustainable even at these levels, let alone higher prices.

 

 

Gene, regarding contemporary art, isn't one of the issues that most of the artists are still producing. Again, I know next to nothing, but isn't the fair comparison for a contemporary piece recently produced a more modern Ditko piece, ie. a machine man page compared to an ASM?

 

Like I said, fine art to OA is an imperfect comparison. I'd probably take the $100K Ditko page over a lot of contemporary art myself, because I'm a comic fan and OA collector. That said, it's easy to get wrapped up in our little insular world and just think about how great Ditko is and fantasize about where prices should go, when prices have already caught up to a lot of other things in the outside world where, as someone pointed out, most people probably love Spider-Man but couldn't tell the difference between a Ditko or Romita and couldn't care less about every buying a piece of Spider-Man OA.

 

 

Combine all this with the continued erosion, and eventual collapse in the buying power of the dollar (and other fiat currencies) as the Fed continues to debauch the currency, and I see no short term (or likely long term) downside in the ownership of hard assets, including the comic art market.

 

I agree that, in the long run, the purchasing power of the dollar and other fiat currencies is toast. That said, what a lot of hard asset advocates seem to totally ignore is the starting value of those hard assets. I mean, OA prices are up hundreds of percent in the last 7 years in a lot of cases (on the good stuff, anyway). How much are low interest rates and expectations of currency debasement already priced in? Commodities should also benefit from this long-term trend, and yet the CRB Index peaked four years ago. Precious metals have not made new highs since 2011.

 

I mean, it's all good to say that the currency is being debauched, so buy silver, but if you had bought it at $50 last year, you'd be down almost 40% already. If you buy a good-but-not-great Ditko page for $100K, how much are you really protected from currency debasement? OA appreciation at the high end has outstripped income growth, inflation and appreciation of other assets by a wide margin since I started collecting a decade ago. And it's entirely possible that another bout of deflation could precede an inflationary trend and that prices could tumble sharply in the short-run if we got a more prolonged 2008-9 type episode (does anybody really doubt that something like that could happen?)

 

 

The problem with the nostalgia thing is that is only works if you read comics as a kid.

 

In essence, who will replace us as collectors? Also, has any pre-1950s art come close to approaching the amounts garnered by the likes of McFarlane and Ditko?

 

Yeah, the so-called Rule of 25 fails so often that it should be called a "weak tendency" at best. The art that will likely do the best over time are the most important pages, from the most important artists, on the most important characters that remain in the mainstream spotlight. It's very interesting to look at those '80s and '90s auction results. While a lot of classic strip art that was priced higher than most superhero art has certainly underperformed on a relative basis over the past 20-30 years, do you know what else has? Frazettas. While prices are certainly up a lot since then, superhero art is up many, many more multiples since the Frazettas were already priced highest back then. Nowadays, a McSpidey cover can sell for more than a Famous Funnies cover. Spidey = still in the limelight. Buck Rogers = lost in the 20th century. Food for thought.

[PrechterFool-migration]

Gene, keep the comments comming. You know a hell of a lot more aboput art than I do, and I find your comments fascinating. On another note, as a matter of disclosure, when i said the ASM page should have sold for closer to 50k than 100k, my estimate was based in part on reading about it's history at this site and talking to a few other collectors. I don't pretend to be a real expert in anything OA or general art related.

 

Gene, regarding contemporary art, isn't one of the issues that most of the artists are still producing. Again, I know next to nothing, but isn't the fair comparison for a contemporary piece recently produced a more modern Ditko piece, ie. a machine man page compared to an ASM? Is it really fair to coimpare his ASM work to soething right off the assempbly line? Again, I don't know the moderrn art market; I am jsut trying to absorb what you are saying.

 

 

To Doc Joe, thanks for spelling out comiclink's bidding policies.

 

How many times in a single post can a person say they dont know anything?

[artcollector9]

No one buys a Buck Rogers cover for 'Buck'-- they buy it for FRANK.

 

Illustration art isn't as content driven as super hero art is.

 

Frazetta art hasn't underperformed-- on the contrary-- $1.5 Mil for a painting is a huge increase from pervious oil painting highs of 10 years ago...

 

If I told you what we've declined, your head would spin.

 

Rob

[delekkerste]

Delving further into the "OA as hard asset" theory, that ASM #29 page was for sale at what, $25K two years ago and getting no love before Josh bought it? And now it sells for $100K. So, we're talking about a 300% price gain in two years. Gold, by comparison, is up "only" 38%, silver is up 63%, the LivX-100 fine wine index is DOWN 15%, the CRB Index is up 17%, oil is up 34%, etc. during that time period. If I did want to protect myself against long-term currency debasement, why would I want to buy the asset that's up 300% when I can buy the asset (gold) that will undoubtedly prove to be more desirable and widely accepted in that type of environment? Plus, it's not only portable, but it's divisible which OA isn't. In an environment where inflation and currency debasement is at the forefront (which I think will eventually happen, but probably not before another deflationary episode), I'm sure people will be rushing to buy anything that's not nailed down (including real estate, which has been depreciating all the while OA has been rocketing higher), but there will be many assets that get more love before Kirbys and Ditkos. It's not like the man on the street is going to be buying 6-figure Marvel large art to protect their portfolios.

 

Yes, that ASM #29 page sale was probably somewhat of an outlier, but, even so, a lot of high-end OA has also outstripped other (hard) assets by a wide margin already, and, to me at least, is looking relatively overvalued as a result.

[inovrmihd]

I can do it several times when I want it made clear that I am speculating about what is going on and trying to apply common sense.

[PrechterFool-migration]

I can do it several times when I want it made clear that I am speculating about what is going on and trying to apply common sense.

 

It was a rhetorical question

[Ferran Delgado]

Gene, did you ever consider to start a blog? It wouldn't take you more time than to write the posts in this thread, and I think that you would do a great service to the hobby...

[delekkerste]

Frazetta art hasn't underperformed-- on the contrary-- $1.5 Mil for a painting is a huge increase from pervious oil painting highs of 10 years ago...

 

I think you misunderstood me, Rob. On a percentage basis, Frazettas have grossly underperformed Marvel superhero art. The numbers speak for themselves. Frazettas were already king of the heap in the '80s and early '90s. A Frazetta from 20 years ago might "only" be worth, say, 8-15x more than what it was back then, while some Marvel art is worth 100-500+x as much. Some of those McSpidey covers were originally bought for 3-figures back in the day. A lot of Marvel covers were 2-digit items in the '80s and 3-digit items in the early '90s. Frazettas were already 4 and 5 figures for the most part, even 6 figures for some. For the Frazettas to have kept pace, they would have had to become 8-figure items in some cases! Meanwhile, I was offered a Famous Funnies cover less than 2 months ago for about the same price as the ASM #317 cover realized in the last Heritage sale.

 

Look at Terry's thread and see all those Herriman KK Sundays with a $2K minimum bid. Most of those today are probably $20-$35K type items. 10-18x higher than 25 years ago (and that's assuming they sold at the minimum bid, which is probably being overly conservative), yes, but that's a huge relative underperformance vs. superhero art. Over the past 25 years, it's the important superhero stuff that has outperformed the art that was once considered the best, most classic work (e.g., Frazetta, Raymond, Herriman, etc.) Not that the latter hasn't done well, but in the current environment, '60s Marvel art is king.

[Doc Joe]

The flippers of comics are not collectors anymore than the flippers of art would not be considered collectors.

 

I never really comprehend the sucess of flipping; obviously the implication is that you got it for a steal and think that you can do better. My suspicion is that it does not work out as well as one might think.

 

Assuming with the internet there is greater transparency and awareness of the items for sale then one can only presume that market price was paid and it was paid by the flipper.

 

Why they suddenly think they got a good deal and can make more off of it right away I dont understand.

 

Having GPA for comics is limited but helpful. It can show you what prices have been doing, and what a specific book by serial number sold for recently. Books do become hot and prices go up or down.

 

Could the same thing happen to McSipdey Covers as happened with Conan 1 cgc 9.8?

 

3-4 copies selling in 9.8 for around 10K, then suddenly all the people who will pay that much have their book, the next sale 4K and there is hovers trending downwards.

 

What effect on price would putting 4 McSpidey Covers on the market at once have? Obviously they are not the same image so would be valued differently and Hulks nut shot was worth more to someone that Spidey and his little web friends. (personally I think "who is the strongest now" may be a statement from Metropolis and have something to do with their desire to acquire it)

 

Brave and Bold cover 34 sold, then is listed again at twice the price. Is it flipping if its a dealer?

 

[artcollector9]

 

I think the McSpidey cover was only the beginning, and it's planned that way.

 

If the 'recent' McSpidey is 600K, McDitko is certainly $1 Mil... so this new market will correct and increase backwards...IMO.

 

I remember in the 80s, collectors pumped up newer comics first-- at its peak, TMNT #1 was the same price as 1963 Spider-Man #1 at a NYC con I attended... but the smart money flew into the Spider-Man (and early books) eventually.

 

I think the same thing will happen here. Things like EC covers and even Frazetta pieces will seem cheap compared to recent art going for huge sums...and will correct upwards.

 

Sure, precious metals are the place to be, they are real money, e.g. divisible, portable, widely accepted, etc. all markets wax and wane like the moon does...I wouldn't suggest comic art as the only place to park one's funds.

 

But long term, I've been doing this for 35 years and its proven to be a great investment so far. I don't see that changing.

 

So many of us are shocked we've arrived here, where we are now. I've seen pages go from $35 to 350 to 3500 to 35,000...and now $350,000.

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

[Ferran Delgado]

I also saw a X-Men splash by Byrne go from 15k to 8k...

[lb jefferies]

Byrne breakdowns with Austin finishes.....

[Ferran Delgado]

I also saw a X-Men splash by Byrne/Austin go from 15k to 8k...

[Ferran Delgado]

A prominent expert on Byrne with one of the most important collections of Byrne art bet that it'd reach 18k...

[lb jefferies]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't $15K the asking price? Did it previously sell for $15K? I could ask a million dollars for all my art but it doesn't make it worth that...

[Ferran Delgado]

Well, plenty of panel pages of Byrne/Austin's run in X-Men sold in a range of 7-8k so it looked reasonable to expect 15k from a splash, no matter if only Colossus shows and Byrne only did breakdowns. Specially when there were some record sales at Heritage which gave the feeling that these kind of pages were skyrocketing. It's funny to see that now that splash is not desirable anymore...

[comix4fun]

Well, plenty of panel pages of Byrne/Austin's run in X-Men sold in a range of 7-8k so it looked reasonable to expect 15k from a splash, no matter if only Colossus shows and Byrne only did breakdowns.

 

 

 

"Byrne only did breakdowns" is a pretty big matter, no?

 

It always has been in this hobby. There are a ton of early silver age titles where Kirby only did layouts or breakdowns and they are worth a fraction of his fully penciled pieces.

 

I didn't look at this splash closely, but if I had been interested and found out it was Byrne breakdowns and not full pencils I can assure you it would have greatly factored into my bidding strategy.