1st Wolverine art @ $140K with 22 days to go!! 0

[delekkerste]

I agree that it is remote. I have two issues with your statement. I dispute that a life long passion is a necessary condition for a large purchase in any field, which you have now redacted/rephrased to make your intended point clear.

 

Secondly I would say your wording is still too strong when you say "the odds are remote enough to not even be worth considering". The mega rich and famous abound with anecdotes of profligate purchases. I see no reason why a 100 millionaire with a demonstrated interest in comics couldn't suddenly become enamored with a certain field and throw themselves into it.

 

As a comic example WallStreetRebel built a top ranking X-Men set (second or third from memory?) in a very short period of time after not collecting at all.

 

A centimillionaire with a demonstrated interest in comics could become enamored with OA and throw themselves into it. However, it's extremely unlikely that they will arrive on the scene and immediately shell out $500K-$1 million for something that they don't have a firm grasp of value on and where that kind of value has no previous track record. It is orders of magnitude more likely that they will dip a toe in and take some time before setting record prices (if they ever get to that point). Like I said, nobody wants to look like a fool. That's what I mean when I say they have to gain confidence and experience to get to playing at that level - this has proven to be empirically true 100% of the time in the OA market.

 

I do not know the specifics about WSR's background and so can't comment on it. I suspect that he's someone who had some prior history with comics, though, if only reading them. Otherwise, I'm not sure how or why one gets to collecting top-Census slabs and posting on the CGC Boards or even finds out about this side of the hobby. However, there are always exceptions that prove the rule as well (no need to elaborate on his specifics, as it's not really germane to the discussion). Unless I specifically dictate that I am metaphysically certain, most of the time I am speaking in terms of calculated probability, not absolute certainty (even if some people here have gotten the wrong impression).

[COI]

As a comic example WallStreetRebel built a top ranking X-Men set (second or third from memory?) in a very short period of time after not collecting at all.

 

Fair enough, but Gene does have a point in that OA is a trickier animal. Someone who gets interested out of the blue can just look up prices in GPA and feel secure that they are getting their money's worth.

 

When you start from scratch in OA it simply takes quite a bit of time before you can build up the confidence in your internal valuations.

 

You aren't just going to swing for the fences like that. Being a newbie in a world of one-of-a-kinds with valuation factors you don't understand is a little intimidating at first. You're far more likely to be worried about overpaying due to your ignorance than you are to start throwing money around like its candy. Its actually once you are into it and have a little (but not yet a lot) of knowledge that you're more likely to overspend a bit, because your confidence has grown and you might think you know more than you do (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).

 

And despite what the Justin Bieber-type characters would have us believe, most people with money have that money because they don't make a habit of throwing it at stuff blindly.

[tth2]

i heard a rumor Eminem could be actively seeking this OA

 

im sure he has the funds for a $1 milllion purchase

Do you say stuff like this just to try to give Gene an aneurysm?

 

Like I've said before, having mega-bucks is a necessary, but insufficient, condition to winning a major trophy piece like this. The reason why just about every single major OA trophy piece has gone to one of the "usual suspects" (there are a very few where we don't know what happened to them, but it's likely that these, too, have gone to longtime collectors), is because it takes a very particular kind of clinical psychosis to spend hundreds of thousands, let alone a million bucks or more, on B&W drawings of men and women in tights, a kind of psychosis that only comes from a lifetime of being passionately involved with the storylines, characters, etc.

 

Guys like Kirk Hammett and Nic Cage had that (though, neither of them managed to make a big splash in the OA world as they both had many competing interests and demands on their time such as busy careers, a hostile spouse in the case of Cage, etc. as well). Hugh Jackman clearly doesn't fit the FBI profile, so he's not going to win this page no matter how much he earns in X-Men/Wolverine salary and royalties. Eminem? I don't know enough about him to comment, but it would be very unusual for anyone, even someone who does have the fever and passion for the material, to come in and drop a million bucks on their first OA purchase. Nobody, especially a celebrity outsider, wants to come in and look like a fool.

 

We had an OA get-together in NYC on Saturday and there were a couple of guys in attendance who have celebrity clients. The major takeaways from both of them? 1. Many celebrities are notoriously cheap, as they often get so many things for free and expect certain privileges. 2. Highly successful celebrities have an infinite number of options as to where to spend their time and money. Once they latch onto something, yes, they can become big spenders, but, the probability of getting to that point is tiny, which is why there are much fewer hardcore celebrity collectors than one might expect (I'd argue the same applies for successful people in other fields).

 

I have little doubt that this page will be won by one of the usual suspects for a sub-$1 million price.

Just once I'd like to see you pour a little gasoline on the fire instead of raining on everyone's parade.

 

The correct response to Drdonaldblake's breathless post should've been:

 

"Eminem?! Holy , he's got big money! Maybe Bill Gates, Kobe Bryant, Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas will bid against each other! The sky's the limit on this piece now, boys! My new prediction is $10,000,000!!!!!!!!"

[The-Collector]

I agree that it is remote. I have two issues with your statement. I dispute that a life long passion is a necessary condition for a large purchase in any field, which you have now redacted/rephrased to make your intended point clear.

 

Secondly I would say your wording is still too strong when you say "the odds are remote enough to not even be worth considering". The mega rich and famous abound with anecdotes of profligate purchases. I see no reason why a 100 millionaire with a demonstrated interest in comics couldn't suddenly become enamored with a certain field and throw themselves into it.

 

As a comic example WallStreetRebel built a top ranking X-Men set (second or third from memory?) in a very short period of time after not collecting at all.

 

A centimillionaire with a demonstrated interest in comics could become enamored with OA and throw themselves into it. However, it's extremely unlikely that they will arrive on the scene and immediately shell out $500K-$1 million for something that they don't have a firm grasp of value on and where that kind of value has no previous track record. It is orders of magnitude more likely that they will dip a toe in and take some time before setting record prices (if they ever get to that point). Like I said, nobody wants to look like a fool. That's what I mean when I say they have to gain confidence and experience to get to playing at that level - this has proven to be empirically true 100% of the time in the OA market.

 

I do not know the specifics about WSR's background and so can't comment on it. I suspect that he's someone who had some prior history with comics, though, if only reading them. Otherwise, I'm not sure how or why one gets to collecting top-Census slabs and posting on the CGC Boards or even finds out about this side of the hobby. However, there are always exceptions that prove the rule as well (no need to elaborate on his specifics, as it's not really germane to the discussion). Unless I specifically dictate that I am metaphysically certain, most of the time I am speaking in terms of calculated probability, not absolute certainty (even if some people here have gotten the wrong impression).

 

Yeah i think that is the problem we are having qualitative arguments about quantitative probabilities. We disagree about the likelihood but both agree it is a possibility I think we can call that consensus/a successful discussion.

 

 

As a comic example WallStreetRebel built a top ranking X-Men set (second or third from memory?) in a very short period of time after not collecting at all.

 

Fair enough, but Gene does have a point in that OA is a trickier animal. Someone who gets interested out of the blue can just look up prices in GPA and feel secure that they are getting their money's worth.

 

When you start from scratch in OA it simply takes quite a bit of time before you can build up the confidence in your internal valuations.

 

You aren't just going to swing for the fences like that. Being a newbie in a world of one-of-a-kinds with valuation factors you don't understand is a little intimidating at first. You're far more likely to be worried about overpaying due to your ignorance than you are to start throwing money around like its candy. Its actually once you are into it and have a little (but not yet a lot) of knowledge that you're more likely to overspend a bit, because your confidence has grown and you might think you know more than you do (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).

 

And despite what the Justin Bieber-type characters would have us believe, most people with money have that money because they don't make a habit of throwing it at stuff blindly.

 

Yeah the majority are wise, but there is no shortage of new and old money who like to thrown their cash away on ugly half million dollar cars and beluga caviar.

 

 

[tth2]

Wow.

 

 

Says the guy who tries to use a coin example to disprove the assertion that "people who become rich and famous don't get into the various aspects of the comics industry unless they were already lifelong fans before."

 

Keep up the good work, Socrates!

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. Why anyone takes you seriously is beyond me.

 

"People don't get nostalgic over coins."

 

That's one of the more uneducated blanket statements I have ever seen on this board.

 

 

I think you're both arguing just to argue at this point.

Ya think?

[tth2]

It's funny I didn't question it then but when I look at Keaton now I just think to myself that he, to use a Joecollectorism, has got breadstick arms. When I find myself thinking that batman looks like I could b!tchslap him it loses some dramatic effect.

Yeah, but that was an era before actors habitually started getting all pumped up and ripped for their movies.

[Chip Cataldo]

If I had that kind of money I'd hire Katy Perry for something else entirely.

 

Just sayin'...

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[Bronty]

It's funny I didn't question it then but when I look at Keaton now I just think to myself that he, to use a Joecollectorism, has got breadstick arms. When I find myself thinking that batman looks like I could b!tchslap him it loses some dramatic effect.

Yeah, but that was an era before actors habitually started getting all pumped up and ripped for their movies.

 

Agreed and I just think a greater percentage young guys in north america lift weights now than back then. I wouldn't have even thought to look at the relation between jack's hand and michael's bicep back then because I wasn't working out myself much then, so it just looked normal.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I didn't want to post anything further in this thread, but, since I have, my previous point regarding coin collectors was obviously a generalization and not 100% true in all cases. It was never meant to do anything other than to point out the obvious differences between the coin hobby (a "status" hobby as someone described) and the comics/comic art hobby, which (along with baseball cards, toys, etc.) is largely fueled by nostalgia and the narrative of recapturing youth, and to point out that trying to disprove my point about the latter by pointing out anything to do with the former made little sense.

 

You don't know what you're talking about when speaking of the coin hobby.

 

There is just as much nostalgia in coins as there is in comics. It "makes little sense" to you because, again, you don't know what you're talking about. To call coins a "status" hobby is absurd; yes, at the upper echelons, it is. But millions upon millions of people started out by carefully saving their brand new cents, nickels, and dimes, often in cheap cardboard folders.

 

It was, in fact, the national hobby of the Great Depression, because it was so cheap. People could afford to put old Indian head cents in their boards that they remember from "when they were kids" and show THEIR kids what money used to look like.

 

Coin collecting is a universal hobby. Coins are even more universal than comics, because EVERYONE used (and uses) coins. ORIGINAL COMIC ART, on the other hand, is EXCLUSIVELY a "status hobby", available only to those with access and money.

 

Unless, of course, there was an original art rack at the local 7-11, where kids could take their nickels and dimes and buy.

 

...was there an original art rack, and I just missed it?

 

 

Now THAT would have been cool.

[Bronty]

If I had that kind of money I'd hire Katy Perry for something else entirely.

 

Just sayin'...

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

She's OK, but you could do better.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If I had that kind of money I'd hire Katy Perry for something else entirely.

 

Just sayin'...

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

She's OK, but you could do better.

 

I'm still trippin' on the Original Comic Art rack at 7-11....

 

[Bronty]

If I had that kind of money I'd hire Katy Perry for something else entirely.

 

Just sayin'...

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

She's OK, but you could do better.

 

I'm still trippin' on the Original Comic Art rack at 7-11....

 

 

Oh can we bury this already? With the katy perry talk we were halfway to changing the topic to boobs!

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If I had that kind of money I'd hire Katy Perry for something else entirely.

 

Just sayin'...

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

She's OK, but you could do better.

 

I'm still trippin' on the Original Comic Art rack at 7-11....

 

 

Oh can we bury this already? With the katy perry talk we were halfway to changing the topic to boobs!

 

 

Whatev. You know an original art rack at 7-11 would have been cool.

[Chip Cataldo]

If I had that kind of money I'd hire Katy Perry for something else entirely.

 

Just sayin'...

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

She's OK, but you could do better.

...and cheaper, but I wanted to stay on topic.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[delekkerste]

You don't know what you're talking about when speaking of the coin hobby.

 

There is just as much nostalgia in coins as there is in comics. It "makes little sense" to you because, again, you don't know what you're talking about. To call coins a "status" hobby is absurd; yes, at the upper echelons, it is. But millions upon millions of people started out by carefully saving their brand new cents, nickels, and dimes, often in cheap cardboard folders.

 

It was, in fact, the national hobby of the Great Depression, because it was so cheap. People could afford to put old Indian head cents in their boards that they remember from "when they were kids" and show THEIR kids what money used to look like.

 

Coin collecting is a universal hobby. Coins are even more universal than comics, because EVERYONE used (and uses) coins. ORIGINAL COMIC ART, on the other hand, is EXCLUSIVELY a "status hobby", available only to those with access and money.

 

I've made EXACTLY the same arguments you are making now describing how everyone uses money and stamps and such and how these are more universal hobbies than comics. It is precisely BECAUSE everybody uses and are familiar with them, and that their histories are easier and quicker to learn than all the myriad storylines, characters, creators, crossovers, etc. that many/most of us here have only accumulated through years/decades of reading and collecting comics, that they simply don't require that kind of lengthy prior history and experience that someone who becomes a high-end slab or OA collector inevitably needs and has.

 

This is why it is far from inconceivable for someone to come into money and start collecting coins at age 29 when they didn't collect as a youth. On the other hand, it is far less common to see someone just get into comics at that age if they weren't exposed to them before, and less common still to see them get involved in slabs or comic art which are even more niche if they didn't build up to that level over a longer period of time.

 

Sorry, but Louis Eliasberg's experience in coins is quite different from the experience of every OA collector I know and am likely to encounter, and for good reason - they're simply different types of hobbies, something I think almost everyone here would agree with it. I have met precisely zero OA collectors who weren't serious comic collectors before, and almost everyone who becomes a serious comic collector had a lengthy indoctrination period. I have yet to see a documented case of someone seeking out or just chancing upon OA without any kind of comics background, thinking its cool, and suddenly becoming a serious collector at age 29 or later (heck, or earlier, even).

 

Can you please just accept this as being obvious like everybody else?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Can you please just accept this as being obvious like everybody else?

 

Annnnnddd there's that appeal to popularity fallacy again....

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

You keep arguing something that no one is disputing.

 

No one is disputing your premise. No one is arguing against this, that for the majority of the OA market, outsiders don't get involved at the top on a whim. Why do you keep arguing as if anyone is?

 

THIS piece is different. THIS piece is special. THIS piece is "out of the ordinary."

 

THIS piece. Not the market in general. THIS piece. THIS piece breaks the rules. THIS piece has a greater chance of being acquired by someone who is not "the usual suspects" because it is something above and beyond even the upper echelons of original art.

 

THIS piece, more than any other on the market for a long time, symbolizes something that has *become* universal, and the ordinary arguments don't apply.

 

Can you please just accept this as obvious like everybody else?

 

PS. There are just as many intricate details about coins as there are about comics. Do you know what a VAM number is? Or Overton? Or what a die state is? It's not just about "oh, I have a cent from every year from 1909-1958! I'm complete!"

 

PPS. When Louis Eliasberg began his collection...in 1925....there were perhaps 1,000 coin collectors in the United States. Coin collecting didn't become popular until the Great Depression. Most people looked at coins as simply money, and even a cent in 1925 still carried a great deal of value. So, no, back *then*, it wasn't a universal hobby. There was no established hobby to speak of, except for the rich...so yes, the analogy with the OA market does have bearing.

[delekkerste]

You need to stop hiding behind the popularity fallacy - it's doing nothing to mask the fact that you are consistently wrong.

[COI]

You keep arguing something that no one is disputing.

 

No one is disputing your premise. No one is arguing against this, that for the majority of the OA market, outsiders don't get involved at the top on a whim. Why do you keep arguing as if anyone is?

 

THIS piece is different. THIS piece is special. THIS piece is "out of the ordinary."

 

THIS piece. Not the market in general. THIS piece. THIS piece breaks the rules. THIS piece has a greater chance of being acquired by someone who is not "the usual suspects" because it is something above and beyond even the upper echelons of original art.

 

THIS piece, more than any other on the market for a long time, symbolizes something that has *become* universal, and the ordinary arguments don't apply.

 

Can you please just accept this as obvious like everybody else?

 

PS. There are just as many intricate details about coins as there are about comics. Do you know what a VAM number is? Or Overton? Or what a die state is? It's not just about "oh, I have a cent from every year from 1909-1958! I'm complete!"

 

PPS. When Louis Eliasberg began his collection...in 1925....there were perhaps 1,000 coin collectors in the United States. Coin collecting didn't become popular until the Great Depression. Most people looked at coins as simply money, and even a cent in 1925 still carried a great deal of value. So, no, back *then*, it wasn't a universal hobby. There was no established hobby to speak of, except for the rich...so yes, the analogy with the OA market does have bearing.

 

Coins are for dinks.

[RockMyAmadeus]

You need to stop hiding behind the popularity fallacy - it's doing nothing to mask the fact that you are consistently wrong.

 

You need to stop making the popularity fallacy. Fallacious arguments are a sign of weak positions.