High grade non-keys losing value?

[Bookery]

I'll concede the point that pulp fiction has always played a prominent role in popular entertainment, especially early television of the 1950's & 60's, but the facts as you're presenting them aren't in evidence (I thought I'd toss that in since you left out Perry Mason).

 

Perry never appeared in the pulps...

 

I know where you're coming from in appreciating the contributions made by pulps to movies, television, radio and other forms of popular entertainment and respect your POV, but the only way this venerable dog can be persuaded to hunt is by stretching it's leash.

 

We can both agree that there are quite a few big-budget comic character movie franchises. Please name one or more recent, marginally successful pulp character movie franchises?

 

I don't think you're understanding my point. If I could name modern big-budget successful pulp movies, then my whole argument would be moot. My point is that these characters were as big as they could be in their time, with the technologies available then. They have now fallen to the wayside in favor of today's flavor of hero. Today's flavor will eventually give way to something else.

 

 

Zorro, the Shadow, Tarzan, The Whistler, etc., were all successful as popular fiction, but never green-lighted as more than low budget programmers (that is, rewarded with first class productions comparable in their own time to modern comic character blockbusters or James Bond).

 

In the 40s and 50s very few movies got the big-budget treatment... How many Gone with the Winds were there? Casablanca, Key Largo, High Noon... all pretty low-budget enterprises. The mega-epic didn't really evolve until the 1960s (DeMiIlle aside), and by then pulp heroes were fading (which is my point all along).

 

On rare occasions over the past forty years when attempts have been made to bring popular pulp characters back to the screen in major productions (including revered pulp icons such as Doc Savage & The Shadow) they've failed to attract an audience validating the bigger production budgets.

 

Exactly. And in 50 years Spider-Man will probably fail to attract big-budget movie audiences. It is the way of the world.

 

Whatever the reasons, audiences young and old seem to connect better with identifiable comic characters that are handled with a bit more sensitivity to the source material.

 

No. Again, you're comparing today's tastes with yesterday's. Audiences were just fine with the way Tarzan and Zorro movies were made back then. Things evolve. The kind of frenetic camerawork and editing prevalent in today's action films would have got you fired from the Studio back in the 50s.

 

Anyway... from every century a few characters and authors will survive, though often in reduced emphasis. Shakespeare is still considered pretty darn important... but now mainly by teachers and scholars... the general public doesn't read these works anymore, nor do they attend these (or any other, for that matter) plays (there's an entire entertainment medium that's now relegated to a niche market!).

 

Spider-Man swinging between buildings will be about as relevent as Tarzan swinging between trees if someday we're all traveling in our own hovercrafts or teleporting between destinations.

 

All I'm stating is actually the blatantly obvious... no character or entertainment medium stays popular forever. Now do today's collectors need to worry? Well... it's pretty obvious many comic characters have already faded as has been mentioned. Do you ever wonder why anthology comics like Popular, King, Famous Funnies, etc., dominated their covers with Nancy, Katzenjammer Kids, Li'l Abner, etc., while heroes like The Phantom, Flash Gordon, Captain Midnight (Dell version) were mostly only on the inside? It's because at the time, those humor characters were more popular than the action heroes.... putting them on the cover sold more copies.

 

But Spider-Man, Batman, yes... even Superman... they will all fade into purely niche markets someday...but in those cases, certainly not while this generation grew up on these mega-movies you mention... so probably noty a concern in any of our lifetimes.

 

[rjpb]

PCH is in a stronger spot than most niche GA books (IMHO) because it isn't dependent on a trend, popular childhood character or anything else only good art and a universal love for monsters, ghouls, blood, guts and gore there seems to be an insatiable demand for the macabre regardless of demographic and this seems to transcend generations.

 

Might that same type of logic be applied to GGA? I've heard the counterpoint on these boards before that GGA will be one of the next genres to fall.

 

I would argue yes and for basically the same reasons anyone of any generation loves to look at GGA and it isn't dependent on some nostalgic link to a childhood character that may ultimately not translate to the next generation of collectors.

 

GGA appreciation has gone through changes though. Originally GGA comics were appreciated because they seemed a bit risque in relation to the desexualized comics of the post-code era, though they had always been fairly tame compared to cheesecake in other media. There was a "look what they used show in comic books" aspect that went beyond mere pin-up appeal. Much the same was true of interest in old horror comics. Over the last 40 years comic book art and storytelling has developed to the point where GGA and PCH from those earlier days looks rather tame in comparison to what's available now, but the appeal is still there. and in some ways ( especially with GGA) it's because it's not as overt as what is currently available. I don't think it was a coincidence that interest in classic cheesecake and "glamour" art and photography really took off once outright pornography became mainstreamed and easily available in the 70s and 80s, and even 50s era nudie magazines and striptease reels seemed quaint by comparison.

Oddly, the relative "innocence" of what passed for provocative in an earlier era has it's own allure.

[markseifert]

Combined with the decline in comic book sales, super heroes must have seemed pretty unpromising material to studio execs.

 

This is under-discussed, but what we're seeing now is a generation of studio execs who came of age during the late 80s / early 90s comics renaissance and therefore look at comics in a way that previous generations of studio execs did not.

 

The man who owns Legendary Pictures (Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel, 300, Watchmen, etc, etc), Thomas Tull, is a legit comic book fan. People who grew up during the Watchmen / Dark Knight Returns era have reached positions of power in Hollywood.

[Bookery]

Incidentally, when I was younger, almost everyone I knew collected something--comic books, coins, stamps, baseball cards, bottle caps, whatever. I now work as a teacher, and I don't see any of my students collecting anything. It's as if the ritual of collecting just didn't get passed along to generation Y2K, probably because most of them are living virtual lives online.

 

This is a very significant point. In my 30 years as a dealer, these conversations about future trends pop up all of the time. For the most part, I have been able to study and make pretty accurate ptredictions about how very general trends will evolve. But I never could have predicted that "collecting" itself may be coming to an end.

 

But Jimbo is correct... every kid I knew collected when I was young... off the top of my head I can recall comics (probably accumulated is a little more accurate than collecting, but still...), coins, baseball cards, Aurora kits, matchbox cars, etc.

 

Today none of the kids I know collect anything. Their worlds are completely tied to the here-and-now. I would extend this even up through the 20-somethings. Few know anything (nor care) about history. Few have given much thought or planning to the future. Everything is about today... what's at the movies now, what's on the computer now, who's texting now, etc., etc.

 

So all previous predictive methodologies may be useless. I would never have thought books would be dying out as a household item, but they are. They thrived for 500 years (just a tad bit longer than comics' 80-year history), but are becoming less and less relevant to the average person every day.

 

All of this stuff may be as useful to the vast majority of the next generation as owning a horse would be to the vast majority of today's population.

 

Technology changes everything.

 

[rjpb]

Today none of the kids I know collect anything. Their worlds are completely tied to the here-and-now. I would extend this even up through the 20-somethings. Few know anything (nor care) about history. Few have given much thought or planning to the future. Everything is about today... what's at the movies now, what's on the computer now, who's texting now, etc., etc.

 

And yet they still won't get off my lawn.

[Bookery]

Today none of the kids I know collect anything. Their worlds are completely tied to the here-and-now. I would extend this even up through the 20-somethings. Few know anything (nor care) about history. Few have given much thought or planning to the future. Everything is about today... what's at the movies now, what's on the computer now, who's texting now, etc., etc.

 

And yet they still won't get off my lawn.

 

Just set a TV on the lawn and run a black-and-white movie. They'll take off and won't come back!

 

[rjpb]

I would never have thought books would be dying out as a household item, but they are. They thrived for 500 years (just a tad bit longer than comics' 80-year history), but are becoming less and less relevant to the average person every day.

 

All of this stuff may be as useful to the vast majority of the next generation as owning a horse would be to the vast majority of today's population.

 

Technology changes everything.

 

I think reading paper formats will become increasingly marginalized, but won't completely disappear. My teenage kids still enjoy reading tangible books, even though they are completely wired otherwise. On the other hand, my 80 year old father, always a voracious reader, pretty much only reads books on his iphone anymore.

[Johnny545]

 

Frankly, the only declines that have surprised me over the last decade have been with the Gaines File copies and the Disney duck books. If those can take a hit, is any genre safe?

 

 

Why is this surprising? File copies turned out to be more plentiful than originally thought and so their value was based on a false perception of scarcity and when that became well known the price declined.

 

Disney duck books were an obvious group to take a hit - who owns these books, why do they or did they buy them - some nostalgic link to childhood a perception it is/was a good investment? Regardless of the reason, these books do not resonate with younger collectors on any level in my opinion. You can throw Archie in there also.

 

When the perception ends that these books can hold their value - they wont - they will fall dramatically in price in my opinion.

 

The question to ask is, will there be there be collectors going forward to replace those who own the book and are leaving the hobby and selling these books?

 

Unequivocally, NO.

 

Any niche genre/book predominantly owned by babyboomers (or older generations) that is unable to connect with younger collectors (for whatever reason) is destined for declining prices.

 

 

[Bookery]

I would never have thought books would be dying out as a household item, but they are. They thrived for 500 years (just a tad bit longer than comics' 80-year history), but are becoming less and less relevant to the average person every day.

 

All of this stuff may be as useful to the vast majority of the next generation as owning a horse would be to the vast majority of today's population.

 

Technology changes everything.

 

I think reading paper formats will become increasingly marginalized, but won't completely disappear. My teenage kids still enjoy reading tangible books, even though they are completely wired otherwise. On the other hand, my 80 year old father, always a voracious reader, pretty much only reads books on his iphone anymore.

 

But you're right. I see major authors putting out limited edition print runs to appease those of us who still prefer books... maybe in editions of only a few thousand copies, and these will likely run $40-$50, but will have decent bindings and paper.

 

Even if comics take off digitally, which hasn't really happened significantly yet, for the forseeable future there will still be graphic novels and archive editions... though they are likely to increase even more in price.

 

Just as I said earlier that every popular trend fades, it's also true that very little disappears completely. There are still collectors out there for dime novels...

 

and both of them are quite happy with their hobby, thank you very much.

 

 

[walclark]

I think so, too. The success of super hero movies has really been rather unexpected, if you think about it. Stan Lee spent years trying to interest a major studio in the Marvel properties. Super heroes on prime time TV consisted of the 1950s Superman series, the short-lived 1960s campy Batman series, and the even shorter-lived Green Hornet series -- unless I'm forgetting something.

 

 

[ciorac]

You guys always say that, yet I meet more and more 20-something GA and SA collectors all the time. So, rules be danged. If something is cool, fun to collect, read, enjoy, and perhaps even profit on, people will join in that fun.

 

Very well put, Bill.

 

 

I did my mentoring part yesterday in Baltimore. I spent the day at Baltimore Comic con with my brother, and my nephew. Nate is 24 years old and had a blast with us. He was on the hunt for his two, attainable" goals. Showcase #60 and Strange Adventures #207. I found him a 9.4 copy of SA 207 and a 8.5 copy of Showcase 60. He was ecstatic.

 

My brother, who has gotten back into the hobby over the past couple years spent a fair amount of money as well. This was the first comic show he has been to since the 70s. He is very excited, and is injecting new money into the hobby.

 

The show was PACKED. And tons of the attendees were young, and buying comics.

 

I talked with a lot of the dealers and they were having good shows, with brisk business. I saw very young collectors looking at Hulk 181s, I mean 13 year olds. And deciding if they could find one to afford.

 

The "collapse" of the hobby is hogwash. Period. Any of you that think it is right around the corner are delusional.

 

One cautionary note, the pool of collectors that can drop tens of thousands of dollars on high grade keys is a small one. So, I might not put all my eggs into such basket unless you are super rich.

 

Greg Reece correctly noted though, that every time he thinks Amazing Fantasy #15 has reached it ceiling, it goes up again. In ALL grades.

 

So, high grade isn't the only safe bet in the hobby, I assure you.

[Cat-Man_America]

I'll concede the point that pulp fiction has always played a prominent role in popular entertainment, especially early television of the 1950's & 60's, but the facts as you're presenting them aren't in evidence (I thought I'd toss that in since you left out Perry Mason).

 

Perry never appeared in the pulps...

 

[font:Times New Roman]From Wikipedia: " ...Mason novels were largely a form of pulp fiction of the sort that began Gardner's writing career... "[/font]

 

 

I know where you're coming from in appreciating the contributions made by pulps to movies, television, radio and other forms of popular entertainment and respect your POV, but the only way this venerable dog can be persuaded to hunt is by stretching it's leash.

 

We can both agree that there are quite a few big-budget comic character movie franchises. Please name one or more recent, marginally successful pulp character movie franchises?

 

I don't think you're understanding my point. If I could name modern big-budget successful pulp movies, then my whole argument would be moot. My point is that these characters were as big as they could be in their time, with the technologies available then. They have now fallen to the wayside in favor of today's flavor of hero. Today's flavor will eventually give way to something else.

 

I won't contest the logic that genre popularity runs in cycles and indeed some change is inevitable. It is also unpredictable, but I'd rather view the facts as they are today than make predictions based on past precedents which are no longer valid. In a global economy with franchises that reach further, cost more and reap greater rewards one cannot ignore success that elevates a genre to stratospheric heights.

 

If you want to determine where along the continuum superhero success resides in the public's mind then compare film grosses that take into account inflation. Also, be sure to add in both domestic and foreign ticket sales, as international markets are key to assessing which films are most sustainable profit-wise today.

 

 

Zorro, the Shadow, Tarzan, The Whistler, etc., were all successful as popular fiction, but never green-lighted as more than low budget programmers (that is, rewarded with first class productions comparable in their own time to modern comic character blockbusters or James Bond).

 

In the 40s and 50s very few movies got the big-budget treatment... How many Gone with the Winds were there? Casablanca, Key Largo, High Noon... all pretty low-budget enterprises. The mega-epic didn't really evolve until the 1960s (DeMiIlle aside), and by then pulp heroes were fading (which is my point all along).

 

We're seeing this from a similar perspective, but drawing different conclusions.

 

Everyone remembers Gone With The Wind because it was successful. Everyone remembers Casablanca, Key Largo, High Noon, not because of their budgets, but because they were successful (profitable well beyond their budgets). Virtually no one remembers the B feature programmers of the era based on phenomenally popular pulp characters such as The Shadow, except us.

 

Allow me to add, the reason many less successful films from the 1940's & 50's are remembered today (without having been profitable in their own time) are through controversy, critical acclaim or having feature players that have since become legend.

 

 

On rare occasions over the past forty years when attempts have been made to bring popular pulp characters back to the screen in major productions (including revered pulp icons such as Doc Savage & The Shadow) they've failed to attract an audience validating the bigger production budgets.

 

Exactly. And in 50 years Spider-Man will probably fail to attract big-budget movie audiences. It is the way of the world.

 

Perhaps, but another line of reasoning would be that the overwhelming success of this and other superhero franchises will be reflected upon by future filmmakers with one eye on profits and the other on reviving popular characters for a new audience. Again, popular culture runs in cycles, but studios are almost always willing to roll the dice on a series or character which has proven overwhelmingly popular with filmgoing audiences before.

 

 

Whatever the reasons, audiences young and old seem to connect better with identifiable comic characters that are handled with a bit more sensitivity to the source material.

 

No. Again, you're comparing today's tastes with yesterday's. Audiences were just fine with the way Tarzan and Zorro movies were made back then. Things evolve. The kind of frenetic camerawork and editing prevalent in today's action films would have got you fired from the Studio back in the 50s.

 

Apples & oranges. Sure, tastes change, but evolution doesn't make the work deemed popular (classic) by contemporary audiences less respected and sought after by future generations provided it still connects in some way with those audiences.

 

 

Anyway... from every century a few characters and authors will survive, though often in reduced emphasis. Shakespeare is still considered pretty darn important... but now mainly by teachers and scholars... the general public doesn't read these works anymore, nor do they attend these (or any other, for that matter) plays (there's an entire entertainment medium that's now relegated to a niche market!).

 

I'm hopeful that at least one re-envisioned Shakespearian work will be embraced by the general public in a BIG way next February...

 

 

 

 

Note: I didn't expect to be afforded the opportunity of plugging my wife's upcoming novel in this forum, but a segue of this magnitude couldn't be ignored!

 

 

Spider-Man swinging between buildings will be about as relevent as Tarzan swinging between trees if someday we're all traveling in our own hovercrafts or teleporting between destinations.

 

I suspect that Spiderman's New York Adventure will still have better Box Office stats. (thumbs u

 

 

All I'm stating is actually the blatantly obvious... no character or entertainment medium stays popular forever. Now do today's collectors need to worry? Well... it's pretty obvious many comic characters have already faded as has been mentioned. Do you ever wonder why anthology comics like Popular, King, Famous Funnies, etc., dominated their covers with Nancy, Katzenjammer Kids, Li'l Abner, etc., while heroes like The Phantom, Flash Gordon, Captain Midnight (Dell version) were mostly only on the inside? It's because at the time, those humor characters were more popular than the action heroes.... putting them on the cover sold more copies.

 

Not really.

 

I don't spend much time wondering why studios aren't producing anthology movies either. If I had to speculate on it, I'd be inclined to say cream rises to the top, but if I said that you'd probably counter that all milk spoils over time, so there you have it.

 

In respect to predicting past behavior I tend to follow Niven's seventh law (from Known Space)...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niven's_laws

 

 

But Spider-Man, Batman, yes... even Superman... they will all fade into purely niche markets someday...but in those cases, certainly not while this generation grew up on these mega-movies you mention... so probably noty a concern in any of our lifetimes.

 

Maybe, but I predict neither of us will be around to say: "I told you so!"

 

 

[Bookery]

Perry never appeared in the pulps...

 

[font:Times New Roman]From Wikipedia: " ...Mason novels were largely a form of pulp fiction of the sort that began Gardner's writing career... "[/font]

 

Gardner was an early and prolific pulp writer. But he created Perry Mason for the book market... the character never appeared in a pulp. The books took off and Gardner never returned to the pulps.

 

On an interesting side note... technically Philip Marlowe never appeared in the pulps either. Chandler wrote the original stories with another character (or different characters)... I don't recall their names. When he got a chance to sell them to the book market, he changed the name of the character(s) to Philip Marlowe, made minor continuity changes to the stories, but in most other respects simply reprinted them form their pulp apperarances.

 

 

I'm hopeful that at least one re-envisioned Shakespearian work will be embraced by the general public in a BIG way next February...

 

 

 

 

Note: I didn't expect to be afforded the opportunity of plugging my wife's upcoming novel in this forum, but a segue of this magnitude couldn't be ignored!

 

Congratulations to your wife!

 

 

 

[Bookery]

The "collapse" of the hobby is hogwash. Period. Any of you that think it is right around the corner are delusional.

 

Why in every one of these threads does someone do this?

 

First of all, the hobby is obviously thriving right now, in terms of price escalation anyway, if certainly not in large increases of new readers/collectors.

 

"Collapse" and "decline" are two different things, and most of us who believe all things ebb in time are talking decades from now, not "around the corner".

 

But if you want to believe that comic books, and only comic books, will buck the trend of everythng that has ever been collected in human history, feel free to keep calling others deluional.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

Perry never appeared in the pulps...

 

[font:Times New Roman]From Wikipedia: " ...Mason novels were largely a form of pulp fiction of the sort that began Gardner's writing career... "[/font]

 

Gardner was an early and prolific pulp writer. But he created Perry Mason for the book market... the character never appeared in a pulp. The books took off and Gardner never returned to the pulps.

 

On an interesting side note... technically Philip Marlowe never appeared in the pulps either. Chandler wrote the original stories with another character (or different characters)... I don't recall their names. When he got a chance to sell them to the book market, he changed the name of the character(s) to Philip Marlowe, made minor continuity changes to the stories, but in most other respects simply reprinted them form their pulp apperarances.

 

 

I'm hopeful that at least one re-envisioned Shakespearian work will be embraced by the general public in a BIG way next February...

 

 

 

 

Note: I didn't expect to be afforded the opportunity of plugging my wife's upcoming novel in this forum, but a segue of this magnitude couldn't be ignored!

 

Congratulations to your wife!

 

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]Thanks! I'll pass that along.

 

Great discussions in this thread, BTW. [/font] (thumbs u

[tb]

Incidentally, when I was younger, almost everyone I knew collected something--comic books, coins, stamps, baseball cards, bottle caps, whatever. I now work as a teacher, and I don't see any of my students collecting anything. It's as if the ritual of collecting just didn't get passed along to generation Y2K, probably because most of them are living virtual lives online.

 

This is a very significant point. In my 30 years as a dealer, these conversations about future trends pop up all of the time. For the most part, I have been able to study and make pretty accurate ptredictions about how very general trends will evolve. But I never could have predicted that "collecting" itself may be coming to an end.

 

But Jimbo is correct... every kid I knew collected when I was young... off the top of my head I can recall comics (probably accumulated is a little more accurate than collecting, but still...), coins, baseball cards, Aurora kits, matchbox cars, etc.

 

Today none of the kids I know collect anything. Their worlds are completely tied to the here-and-now. I would extend this even up through the 20-somethings. Few know anything (nor care) about history. Few have given much thought or planning to the future. Everything is about today... what's at the movies now, what's on the computer now, who's texting now, etc., etc.

 

So all previous predictive methodologies may be useless. I would never have thought books would be dying out as a household item, but they are. They thrived for 500 years (just a tad bit longer than comics' 80-year history), but are becoming less and less relevant to the average person every day.

 

All of this stuff may be as useful to the vast majority of the next generation as owning a horse would be to the vast majority of today's population.

 

Technology changes everything.

 

It's the decline of printed books that I am most concerned about. The impact of that could go far beyond the nostalgic sadness about the demise of toy trains etc. as collectibles that I share with others. Ever since I was a child, I've felt at home in book stores and libraries. From hunting down comics in newsstands and the local library, I learned how quickly to skim through a comic book in a few seconds and find out whether it was worth a closer look. And I loved the treasure hunt of exploring the books on the shelves near to the ones that I already liked and finding unexpected gems. When I made it to the university, I used those skills to hunt down scientific books and articles. I spent thousands of hours at the university library going through the new publications the same way I did when I was a kid. And the fun of being able to look through a book in a few seconds and quickly find any interesting parts had a lot to do with my choice of a career in scientific research. Today, everything is online and, at least to me, it is dreadfully boring to search through books and articles on amazon and the various academic organizations. Sure, all the information is available, but the painful point-of-entry to it is making us dumber: I can't use any of the skills for going through books that I developed since childhood and, as a result, I find myself reading less. Aside from making us more ignorant and less efficient, I fear that this process also will increase the social divide between those who can overcome the barriers created by the demise of books and those that can't. And that's not even getting into the decline of printed newspapers...

[tb]

 

Frankly, the only declines that have surprised me over the last decade have been with the Gaines File copies and the Disney duck books. If those can take a hit, is any genre safe?

 

 

Why is this surprising? File copies turned out to be more plentiful than originally thought and so their value was based on a false perception of scarcity and when that became well known the price declined.

 

Disney duck books were an obvious group to take a hit - who owns these books, why do they or did they buy them - some nostalgic link to childhood a perception it is/was a good investment? Regardless of the reason, these books do not resonate with younger collectors on any level in my opinion. You can throw Archie in there also.

 

When the perception ends that these books can hold their value - they wont - they will fall dramatically in price in my opinion.

 

The question to ask is, will there be there be collectors going forward to replace those who own the book and are leaving the hobby and selling these books?

 

Unequivocally, NO.

 

Any niche genre/book predominantly owned by babyboomers (or older generations) that is unable to connect with younger collectors (for whatever reason) is destined for declining prices.

 

 

I generally agree, but one problem with your premise re. the Disney books is that you are applying arguments motivated by observations on US collectors while the niche market for Duck books largely is supported by European collectors. In Germany, Italy, Scandinavia etc., there is a population of over 100 million that has grown up with greater exposure to Disney comics than Americans of the same age groups have had to comics at all. I am certainly not saying that Disney comics ever will be a good investment, but it's a very special nice market where you have to consider trends across Europe to make meaningful predictions about the future.

[mintcollector]

The "collapse" of the hobby is hogwash. Period. Any of you that think it is right around the corner are delusional.

 

Why in every one of these threads does someone do this?

 

First of all, the hobby is obviously thriving right now, in terms of price escalation anyway, if certainly not in large increases of new readers/collectors.

 

"Collapse" and "decline" are two different things, and most of us who believe all things ebb in time are talking decades from now, not "around the corner".

 

But if you want to believe that comic books, and only comic books, will buck the trend of everythng that has ever been collected in human history, feel free to keep calling others deluional.

 

+1

 

[Gatsby77]

Why is this surprising? File copies turned out to be more plentiful than originally thought and so their value was based on a false perception of scarcity and when that became well known the price declined.

 

This argument doesn't apply to the Gaines Files copies, as the number of copies of the books (what? 2-12 copies each, depending on the book) were known from the beginning 20+ years ago. Among the multiple copies, they were even numbered relatively from best to worst.

 

So, with supply both documented and constant, the decline in prices over the last ten years must equate to falling demand.

 

Ex. House of Fear # 2--a 9.2 copy sells for $2,875 in 2002, vs. a 9.4 sold this summer for only $1,253.

 

Vault of Horror # 16--9.6 sells for $3,220 in 2004 vs. $2,004 this summer.

 

Mad # 1, CGC 9.8--sells for $32,200 in 2004 vs. $19,120 in 2011.

 

[50YrsCollctngCmcs]

Incidentally, when I was younger, almost everyone I knew collected something--comic books, coins, stamps, baseball cards, bottle caps, whatever. I now work as a teacher, and I don't see any of my students collecting anything. It's as if the ritual of collecting just didn't get passed along to generation Y2K, probably because most of them are living virtual lives online.

 

This is a very significant point. In my 30 years as a dealer, these conversations about future trends pop up all of the time. For the most part, I have been able to study and make pretty accurate ptredictions about how very general trends will evolve. But I never could have predicted that "collecting" itself may be coming to an end.

 

But Jimbo is correct... every kid I knew collected when I was young... off the top of my head I can recall comics (probably accumulated is a little more accurate than collecting, but still...), coins, baseball cards, Aurora kits, matchbox cars, etc.

 

Today none of the kids I know collect anything. Their worlds are completely tied to the here-and-now. I would extend this even up through the 20-somethings. Few know anything (nor care) about history. Few have given much thought or planning to the future. Everything is about today... what's at the movies now, what's on the computer now, who's texting now, etc., etc.

 

So all previous predictive methodologies may be useless. I would never have thought books would be dying out as a household item, but they are. They thrived for 500 years (just a tad bit longer than comics' 80-year history), but are becoming less and less relevant to the average person every day.

 

All of this stuff may be as useful to the vast majority of the next generation as owning a horse would be to the vast majority of today's population.

 

Technology changes everything.

 

It's the decline of printed books that I am most concerned about. The impact of that could go far beyond the nostalgic sadness about the demise of toy trains etc. as collectibles that I share with others. Ever since I was a child, I've felt at home in book stores and libraries. From hunting down comics in newsstands and the local library, I learned how quickly to skim through a comic book in a few seconds and find out whether it was worth a closer look. And I loved the treasure hunt of exploring the books on the shelves near to the ones that I already liked and finding unexpected gems. When I made it to the university, I used those skills to hunt down scientific books and articles. I spent thousands of hours at the university library going through the new publications the same way I did when I was a kid. And the fun of being able to look through a book in a few seconds and quickly find any interesting parts had a lot to do with my choice of a career in scientific research. Today, everything is online and, at least to me, it is dreadfully boring to search through books and articles on amazon and the various academic organizations. Sure, all the information is available, but the painful point-of-entry to it is making us dumber: I can't use any of the skills for going through books that I developed since childhood and, as a result, I find myself reading less. Aside from making us more ignorant and less efficient, I fear that this process also will increase the social divide between those who can overcome the barriers created by the demise of books and those that can't. And that's not even getting into the decline of printed newspapers...

 

I agree based on today's technology and can totally relate to your dilemma as I was an inveterate library and bookstore wanderer.

 

I think that there is a huge technological leap that needs to occur with respect to informational browsing. Somewhat akin to the difference between looking at Dewey Decimal cards and searching the aisles. Today search results are like the cards but someone needs to create a search tool that presents information like the aisles. I suspect it is coming.

 

As I write this my son is working on an English paper exploring virtual vs. real friendships; common themes.