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

[Bronty]

I've made this point before, regarding relative values. Going with the JIM #83 Bronty brought up, I'd say a more direct comparison is this page from the book:

 

http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7023&lotNo=93146

 

$65K. An incredible page, imo. What grade of JIM #83 can you get for $65K? Would it be the highest ranked? That's the appeal for ultra-high grade slabs, isn't it? To have something that's relatively rare. Or, better yet, a one-of-a-kind highest graded copy.

 

A 9.0 is maybe 40k or 50k a 9.2 is maybe 80-100k. I think a 9.4 is 200+(?) (guessing). I vaguely remember something about a 9.4 at 250k.

 

I thought about that page as well, except the sale was a little while ago and I could see it getting 100k now.

 

The thor pinup I mentioned just sold this month so it seemed like a more reliable data point, but the #83 page is certainly a good comparison too as is the JIM 84 splash that sold a little while back at 45k.

[Terry Doyle]

Taking values out of the equation, I'm just as happy with reprint editions of those comic-books that figure highly in my life.

 

Owning the highest graded comic-book/s of any key title/s is a race I have no interest in competing in.

 

Anyone else feel this way?

 

[Nexus]

I've made this point before, regarding relative values. Going with the JIM #83 Bronty brought up, I'd say a more direct comparison is this page from the book:

 

http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7023&lotNo=93146

 

$65K. An incredible page, imo. What grade of JIM #83 can you get for $65K? Would it be the highest ranked? That's the appeal for ultra-high grade slabs, isn't it? To have something that's relatively rare. Or, better yet, a one-of-a-kind highest graded copy.

 

A 9.0 is maybe 40k or 50k a 9.2 is maybe 80-100k. I think a 9.4 is 200+(?) (guessing). I vaguely remember something about a 9.4 at 250k.

 

I thought about that page as well, except the sale was a little while ago and I could see it getting 100k now.

 

The thor pinup I mentioned just sold this month so it seemed like a more reliable data point, but the #83 page is certainly a good comparison too as is the JIM 84 splash that sold a little while back at 45k.

 

Yes, that page was sold two years ago. I brought it up at the time. What were the values for graded JIM 83's then?

 

Anyway, if today a 9.2 is $80K-100K, and a 9.4 is $200K+...and we value the page at around $100K...then it appears you could have the page for roughly the same price as a 9.2. Or for the difference between a 9.4 and a 9.2.

 

Another way to look at it is that the one-of-a-kind page is currently valued at X while the highest grade copy (how many are there, anyway?) is 2X+.

 

To me, this still remains an example where OA is undervalued compared to the comic (and yes, I know the "$100K" estimate is just an estimate). We will probably see less of these going forward.

[delekkerste]

How about this...what would you say your collection is objectively worth, market value-wise? More or less than $1M? I'm going to guess less than $1M from what I can recall, without going through your entire collection.

 

 

In any case, yeah, I'd enjoy owning my collection over an Action #1 in any grade, even the Mile High. But that just means that (a) I was fortunate to build out a pretty decent collection over the past 10 years when there were (much) better buying opportunities than now and (b) Action #1s are also egregiously overpriced. Generally speaking, it is much less costly to build out an impressive CGC slab collection than an impressive OA collection these days.

 

As for outliers, there were so many in that last CLink sale that I think the term does not really apply.

[Nexus]

How about this...what would you say your collection is objectively worth, market value-wise? More or less than $1M? I'm going to guess less than $1M from what I can recall, without going through your entire collection.

 

 

In any case, yeah, I'd enjoy owning my collection over an Action #1 in any grade, even the Mile High. But that just means that (a) I was fortunate to build out a pretty decent collection over the past 10 years when there were (much) better buying opportunities than now and (b) Action #1s are also egregiously overpriced.

 

Let's consider a newbie with $1M to blow on comic book collectibles and give him this choice: Buy an ACTION #1 or buy a Gene Park-like OA collection. Obviously, not the exact Gene Park Collection, but one of equal value. That's why I asked what you considered an objective FMV for your collection (I meant as something for you to think about, not that you had to say). It could be a much better value, even buying at today's prices, than an ACTION #1.

 

And this is not meant personally, it's just an observation. You say you've built out your collection over the past 10 years. And it's a most impressive collection. Yet, it looks like many of the key, high-profile pieces were added in the last couple of years. Which means you really missed the better buying opportunities early on. Based on your posts here during that time, we know why: You thought the market was overheated each step of the way. You've previously mentioned 2008 many times as the high-water mark. Well, now it's 2012 and we are facing a new reality, which you've acknowledged. I do expect this will all end at some point, so at that point, you will be correct. But at the same time, I can't say for sure how this will play out. And I don't believe anyone else can, either.

 

Generally speaking, it is much less costly to build out an impressive CGC slab collection than an impressive OA collection these days.

 

That depends, what do you consider an "impressive CGC slab collection"? If it's heavy in GA/SA/BA, then no, it's not necessarily less costly to build out an impressive slab collection than an OA collection. It may even still be more. Although, that could be rapidly changing.

 

As for outliers, there were so many in that last CLink sale that I think the term does not really apply.

 

Heh...even with the last CLink sale...I still don't see how the DKR splash or ASM #328 cover you used as examples could be considered anything but outliers. But yeah, that CLink sale...isn't that what this thread is supposed to be about? Funny, 11 pages in, and no one will say what they really think.

[dem1138]

Since we're making the analogy, I have also seen several collectors shift from Silver Age to Golden Age. You can find AF #15s all of the time in almost every grade but try finding an Action #7 and you are in for a challenge.

 

Regardless, I think we're all a little shocked how the ceiling keeps becoming the floor.

[jbud73]

Even now, $1M would buy you a killer OA *collection*.

 

Yeah, it would get you the DKR #3 splash, the ASM #328 cover and...er, wait, no, you'd already be over budget. But, wait, you could get ten B+ Ditko ASM pages at the new rate of $100K each, though. Or 20 early, if unspectacular, Kirby FF pages!

 

Man, I really don't envy anyone getting into the hobby at this stage of the game.

 

Ha! Sure, pick the outliers:P

 

How about this...what would you say your collection is objectively worth, market value-wise? More or less than $1M? I'm going to guess less than $1M, from what I can recall, without going through your entire collection.

 

Now...which would you rather have? Your OA collection...or ACTION #1 8.0? What would give you more satisfaction?

 

I can say that my collection is definitely worth less than $1M. But I wouldn't sell it for $1M or trade it for an ACTION #1. For one, I wouldn't be able to buy the same pieces back. Even if you don't believe OA is one-of-a-kind, and I could still get similar pieces, I'd still need to spend years putting a collection back together. If the market keeps going the way it has...it will be a losing proposition before I'm done.

 

More importantly, I'm a lot happier with my OA collection than I would be with any one comic.

 

I will point out that no buyer of Hirst, Koons, Murakami, et al, was ever nostalgic for that work. I don't mean to lump OA with those guys, but the other point would be that if that is considered "art", then anything is possible.

 

True, but nostalgia has never been a major for fine art, while it is the primary driver for collectibles (and let's face it, OA is as much collectible as it is art).

 

Well, I would say art is often looked at as a collectible, also. Hence, Charles Saatchi, Armand Hammer, John Fisher, and so on. Art is a collectible to those guys as well, even without nostalgia. That's why the end user needs to be considered along with the product (and let's face it, a lot of what we're talking about is as much product as it is art).

 

Felix I do not disagree with your points, that said, what a lot of 'specifics to generalize arguments' often miss is incorporating the concept of Utility into the motivation, or purpose for buying. I think that is where Gene's arguments have the most strength in that he is bringing up utility as a general concept that has a large emphasis in buying motivation and is just as often not emphasized enough when discussing/analysis how one purchase could or should impact another.

 

Utility put another way is, 'everything else you could have bought, accomplished, gained with the funds you used to make a purchase.' The concept also does not exist in a vacuum and has different levels of impact for different people. In the Action 1 to an entire OA collection argument, you are considering Utility from your perspective. "With the money it cost to buy Action 1 I could have purchased my whole collection and still had money left over. You are also factoring in how much time it would take you to re-buy the OA collection even if you made money on the Action 1.

 

However the Action 1 buyer(s) could have been a conglomerate of people all making 7 figures that contributed 250K. To them a single item purchase of arguably the 3rd or 4th most valuable comic book in the world (of all the comic book in existence) resonated higher for them than whatever else they could have done with their 250K. Or maybe it was one person who moved other items, art, stocks etc etc. To them the appeal of the Action 1, combined with the fact that they were offsetting the cost by selling other things was more powerful that owning those other things and chipping in some cash.

 

Utility and the cost benefit factor always begin from the perspective of the buyer and so by definition will be as mutually exclusive as the motivations of that individual are from the motivations of everyone else. Gene used to have a quote that said (paraphrasing here), I love it at X, but hate it at Y - truer words with respect to human nature, were never spoken.

 

[delekkerste]

Let's consider a newbie with $1M to blow on comic book collectibles and give him this choice: Buy an ACTION #1 or buy a Gene Park-like OA collection. Obviously, not the exact Gene Park Collection, but one of equal value. That's why I asked what you considered an objective FMV for your collection. It could be a much better value, even buying at today's prices, than an ACTION #1.

 

And this is not meant personally, it's just an observation. You say you've built out your collection over the past 10 years. And it's a most impressive collection. Yet, it looks like many of the key, high-profile pieces were added in the last couple of years. Which means you really missed the better buying opportunities early on.

 

(1) $1M will not buy a Gene Park-like collection in this market. Maybe if you exclude all the illustration art and limit it to just the comic art...well, even then, it would be difficult to replicate the quality, breadth and quantity. I know what you're thinking - $1M can buy forty $25K pages and Gene only has 3 Kirbys, 3 Ditkos and 1 Romita. But think about the breadth/variety of my collection, the depth in certain areas and the sheer quantity of pages (hundreds). Not to mention the fact that anyone trying to buy forty $25K pages is going to escalate prices on himself and find it difficult not to have to dip lower and lower in quality even to accumulate that many. More likely, he'll have to spend more to get better quality...and then end up with a smaller and smaller collection to show for it. Sure, you can assemble a good collection for $1M, but, let's face it: prices are higher, competition is higher and availability is lower than at any point in the past 10 years.

 

(2) While much of my collection was acquired in the past couple of years, it would be hugely inaccurate to say that I've missed out on the OA gravy train by being too pessimistic. Sure, we would all have liked to have spent more when prices were lower, but, even before the past couple of years, I had been averaging a solid 6-figure annual spend. To replicate my collection even using its cost basis, you'd have to buy 4-figure Miller Elektra and Ditko ASM pages, etc. And, considering how much a lot of art has been marked up even since the end of last year, I think it's fair to say that many of my purchases from the past couple of years have already appreciated substantially as well (as evidenced by the offers I have received).

 

 

That depends, what do you consider an "impressive CGC slab collection"? If it's heavy in GA/SA/BA, then no, it's not necessarily less costly to build out an impressive slab collection than an OA collection. It may even still be more. Although, that could be rapidly changing.

 

I'm not sure what books you're looking at (must be GA uber-keys and top/near-top Census SA keys), but there's no way I can agree with that assessment. I'd be curious to hear what people who are migrating over to the OA side think about that.

[jbud73]

That depends, what do you consider an "impressive CGC slab collection"? If it's heavy in GA/SA/BA, then no, it's not necessarily less costly to build out an impressive slab collection than an OA collection. It may even still be more. Although, that could be rapidly changing.

 

I'm not sure what books you're looking at (must be GA uber-keys and top/near-top Census SA keys), but there's no way I can agree with that assessment. I'd be curious to hear what people who are migrating over to the OA side think about that.

 

 

Well Schmell's Marvel collection, which was the Best Marvel Collection in the world just hammered for 3.2 Million - true he didn't sell the Spider-Mans.

[Nexus]

Felix I do not disagree with your points, that said, what a lot of 'specifics to generalize arguments' often miss is incorporating the concept of Utility into the motivation, or purpose for buying. I think that is where Gene's arguments have the most strength in that he is bringing up utility as a general concept that has a large emphasis in buying motivation and is just as often not emphasized enough when discussing/analysis how one purchase could or should impact another.

 

Utility put another way is, 'everything else you could have bought, accomplished, gained with the funds you used to make a purchase.' The concept also does not exist in a vacuum and has different levels of impact for different people. In the Action 1 to an entire OA collection argument, you are considering Utility from your perspective. "With the money it cost to buy Action 1 I could have purchased my whole collection and still had money left over. You are also factoring in how much time it would take you to re-buy the OA collection even if you made money on the Action 1.

 

However the Action 1 buyer(s) could have been a conglomerate of people all making 7 figures that contributed 250K. To them a single item purchase of arguably the 3rd or 4th most valuable comic book in the world (of all the comic book in existence) resonated higher for them than whatever else they could have done with their 250K. Or maybe it was one person who moved other items, art, stocks etc etc. To them the appeal of the Action 1, combined with the fact that they were offsetting the cost by selling other things was more powerful that owning those other things and chipping in some cash.

 

Utility and the cost benefit factor always begin from the perspective of the buyer and so by definition will be as mutually exclusive as the motivations of that individual are from the motivations of everyone else. Gene used to have a quote that said (paraphrasing here), I love it at X, but hate it at Y - truer words with respect to human nature, were never spoken.

 

 

Sure, I don't expect everyone to feel the same way or want the same things. That's why I asked Gene directly. And he'd choose his art. Everyone else can decide what works for them.

 

I don't know Gene's quote, but if I love something at X and hate it at Y...I have to consider that I may REALLY hate it at Z. So maybe Y isn't so bad after all.

[jbud73]

Felix I do not disagree with your points, that said, what a lot of 'specifics to generalize arguments' often miss is incorporating the concept of Utility into the motivation, or purpose for buying. I think that is where Gene's arguments have the most strength in that he is bringing up utility as a general concept that has a large emphasis in buying motivation and is just as often not emphasized enough when discussing/analysis how one purchase could or should impact another.

 

Utility put another way is, 'everything else you could have bought, accomplished, gained with the funds you used to make a purchase.' The concept also does not exist in a vacuum and has different levels of impact for different people. In the Action 1 to an entire OA collection argument, you are considering Utility from your perspective. "With the money it cost to buy Action 1 I could have purchased my whole collection and still had money left over. You are also factoring in how much time it would take you to re-buy the OA collection even if you made money on the Action 1.

 

However the Action 1 buyer(s) could have been a conglomerate of people all making 7 figures that contributed 250K. To them a single item purchase of arguably the 3rd or 4th most valuable comic book in the world (of all the comic book in existence) resonated higher for them than whatever else they could have done with their 250K. Or maybe it was one person who moved other items, art, stocks etc etc. To them the appeal of the Action 1, combined with the fact that they were offsetting the cost by selling other things was more powerful that owning those other things and chipping in some cash.

 

Utility and the cost benefit factor always begin from the perspective of the buyer and so by definition will be as mutually exclusive as the motivations of that individual are from the motivations of everyone else. Gene used to have a quote that said (paraphrasing here), I love it at X, but hate it at Y - truer words with respect to human nature, were never spoken.

 

 

Sure, I don't expect everyone to feel the same way or want the same things. That's why I asked Gene directly. And he'd choose his art. Everyone else can decide what works for them.

 

I don't know Gene's quote, but if I love something at X and hate it at Y...I have to consider that I may REALLY hate it at Z. So maybe Y isn't so bad after all.

 

Touche, I guess that's where the fear element gets added to the mix.

[Bronty]

Its probably been said before but I do think the simple creation of this subcategory on the forums has led to some increased interest and prices.

[Nexus]

Let's consider a newbie with $1M to blow on comic book collectibles and give him this choice: Buy an ACTION #1 or buy a Gene Park-like OA collection. Obviously, not the exact Gene Park Collection, but one of equal value. That's why I asked what you considered an objective FMV for your collection. It could be a much better value, even buying at today's prices, than an ACTION #1.

 

And this is not meant personally, it's just an observation. You say you've built out your collection over the past 10 years. And it's a most impressive collection. Yet, it looks like many of the key, high-profile pieces were added in the last couple of years. Which means you really missed the better buying opportunities early on.

 

(1) $1M will not buy a Gene Park-like collection in this market. Maybe if you exclude all the illustration art and limit it to just the comic art...well, even then, it would be difficult to replicate the quality, breadth and quantity. I know what you're thinking - $1M can buy forty $25K pages and Gene only has 3 Kirbys, 3 Ditkos and 1 Romita. But think about the breadth/variety of my collection, the depth in certain areas and the sheer quantity of pages (hundreds). Not to mention the fact that anyone trying to buy forty $25K pages is going to escalate prices on himself and find it difficult not to have to dip lower and lower in quality even to accumulate that many. More likely, he'll have to spend more to get better quality...and then end up with a smaller and smaller collection to show for it. Sure, you can assemble a good collection for $1M, but, let's face it: prices are higher, competition is higher and availability is lower than at any point in the past 10 years.

 

Yes, I was just considering the comic art portion of your collection.

 

I think if if someone set out to buy forty $25K Kirby pages, then yes, he'd drive the market up on himself. But spread that around forty different artists? Not as much. And he'd achieve the breadth/variety you mention.

 

I agree prices are higher and competition has been higher than at any point in the past 10 years (which is also why anyone who has been in the hobby that long should have been buying earlier), but I disagree that availability is lower. There has been some really great art hitting the market, much of it "fresh" (ugh, hate that term).

 

(2) While much of my collection was acquired in the past couple of years, it would be hugely inaccurate to say that I've missed out on the OA gravy train by being too pessimistic. Sure, we would all have liked to have spent more when prices were lower, but, even before the past couple of years, I had been averaging a solid 6-figure annual spend. To replicate my collection even using its cost basis, you'd have to buy 4-figure Miller Elektra and Ditko ASM pages, etc. And, considering how much a lot of art has been marked up even since the end of last year, I think it's fair to say that many of my purchases from the past couple of years have already appreciated substantially as well (as evidenced by the offers I have received).

 

I'll save this one for the next time we meet. NYCC?

 

That depends, what do you consider an "impressive CGC slab collection"? If it's heavy in GA/SA/BA, then no, it's not necessarily less costly to build out an impressive slab collection than an OA collection. It may even still be more. Although, that could be rapidly changing.

 

I'm not sure what books you're looking at (must be GA uber-keys and top/near-top Census SA keys), but there's no way I can agree with that assessment. I'd be curious to hear what people who are migrating over to the OA side think about that.

 

This is a simple excercise: Go into Heritage's archive and pick out 100 (or whatever) slabs that would make up an "impressive CGC slab collection". Add up what they sold for. I'll take that total, go back into Heritage's archive, and come up with a list of art that could have been bought for that amount. We can then compare.

[delekkerste]

This is a simple excercise: Go into Heritage's archive and pick out 100 (or whatever) slabs that would make up an "impressive CGC slab collection". Add up what they sold for. I'll take that total, go back into Heritage's archive, and come up with a list of art that could have been bought for that amount. We can then compare.

 

That would be a fruitless exercise, because most slabs have been depreciating the past couple of years and could be had cheaper now, while any OA datapoints prior to this July might already be considered outdated! Anyway, I'd love to hear from others on the Boards...I don't think many people would agree that OA is competitively priced with slabs for the most part.

 

And yes, see you at the NYCC.

[Bronty]

.I don't think many people would agree that OA is competitively priced with slabs for the most part.

 

I take it you will be liquidating your OA collection to buy slabs

 

 

[Nexus]

This is a simple excercise: Go into Heritage's archive and pick out 100 (or whatever) slabs that would make up an "impressive CGC slab collection". Add up what they sold for. I'll take that total, go back into Heritage's archive, and come up with a list of art that could have been bought for that amount. We can then compare.

 

That would be a fruitless exercise, because most slabs have been depreciating the past couple of years and could be had cheaper now, while any OA datapoints prior to this July might already be considered outdated!

 

Yes, see you at the NYCC.

 

! I don't think it's been quite that dramatic. But fine, we can see in the upcoming Heritage auction then, what a nice set of slabs will buy in OA. There's no Schmell or Billy Wright megacollection, as far as I know, either. Like I said, I do think we are seeing a shift, but I would be surprised if it happened all at once. I think anyone on the fence still has a chance.

 

See you next month!

[jbud73]

Gene, IMO as someone who buys both it seems as if very few slabs are volatile (up or down) - OVERALL there has been a plateau with a slight decline. The Pedigree offerings of the Twin Cities, the Rockies, the Savannah's and Doug's collection which saw the big Pac Coasts back on the market somewhat slowed that perception BUT for a large % of slabs that is what is occurring.

 

It seems as if all OA is volatile right now, a lot of it up, but as you have noted there have been some hot potatoes out there too.

 

I guess if I truly believe that, and I do, I should be buying more slabs right now as it stands I am still buying a mix as the price on some HG slabs is very tempting.

[Bird]

More importantly, I'm a lot happier with my OA collection than I would be with any one comic.

 

It bears repeating that I am a modern era little pool guy. But the above statement was always true for me, and when I went on CAF for the first time it was with the mindset that I'm a lot happier with my OA collection than I would be with any other OA collection. Seriously, when I got to about 3-400 pieces I figured no one anywhere could have a collection that I would rather own than my own. Then I saw stinkin inkin or whatever he calls hisslef round here. But now I LIKE to think that I would rather have most of my collection over anyone else's, but really know 3-4 people I would prolly trade with. I LIKE to think I would have flipped a coin with Dunbier over our collections should the opportunity have presented itself, but...damn. I have some things that are MINE, and if it is all or nothing for a trade perhaps Scott (both of them in fact) can keep their stuff and I can keep mine, thank you very much.

 

Also germaine to the discussion, at least for mid-level collectors like myself whose whole collections are valued in the low 6 figures if that, would you sell all of your original art for that one page? I have thought about going all in for a Ditko Dr. Strange image, but it might take most of my collection liquidated at fair market, not take-everything prices. I am not ruling it out in the future, but I am not ready to do so right now.

 

[Bronty]

.I don't think many people would agree that OA is competitively priced with slabs for the most part.

 

I take it you will be liquidating your OA collection to buy slabs

 

 

The liquidation has begun!!

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryRoom.asp?GSub=123981

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Bookmarking to join the fun later.