First Wolverine Page sells for $657,000!

[lb jefferies]

Really interesting post, thanks, aelhra.

+1

[Bronty]

Very nice posts aelhra

[delekkerste]

Observation: New money builds new museums. Old money scoffs, ignores, then begrudgingly plays catch up.

 

Want to see comic art in a museum? Build one and finance it's operation in perpetuity. This is the only way it's going to happen. Think of the great contemporary (of their day) museums, and then think of the name hanging over the front entrance. Guggenheim. Getty. Gardner. Et al. They were all collectors that embraced 'new' art that wasn't being adopted by the status quo. (And even so Isabella famously avoided Impressionist works by Degas!) So they built their own and stuffed them full of their own collections. Only much later, with new and younger boards throwing money around, did the old school museums play (and pay up for) catch up. And even then, dragged in kicking and screaming. This is why the oldest are so weak in 20th century art. And it's why we're so rich in comic art and nobody else is!

 

This is exactly what I've argued before, and there are probably only a couple of people in the hobby who could realistically pull it off, as it would easily be an 8-figure endeavor (and that's not even including the art) to do it in a location and on a scale that would be meaningful and to a level that everyone here would love to see.

[suspense39]

Very insightful opinions, great to read. I've been pondering the large jumps in prices, being that i started collecting in 2010, the increases are surprising given the short amount of time ive been involved. I see many new collectors coming in with aggressive collecting ideas only to get a reality check once they begin to reach for the pieces they wanted for their collections, do they drop off or lower their expectations. Personally i've shifted my focus to looking for art that I think is undervalued Talking and chatting with other collectors I find most of them optimistic in regard to the continued rise in prices, priced out or not.....we will see. I think Gene is probably right in regard to collectors that have been in the hobby for a while just paying higher prices. I mostly float around art circles and I dont really hear anyone talking about comic art other than my small circle of artist friends who also happen to collect comic art. There have been fairly influential art types, curators etc over at my house and only a couple have even casually commented on any of the comic art on my walls. and usually its something like pointing to Paul Reinman and asking if it's a Clowes

 

[buttock]

Observation: New money builds new museums. Old money scoffs, ignores, then begrudgingly plays catch up.

 

Want to see comic art in a museum? Build one and finance it's operation in perpetuity. This is the only way it's going to happen. Think of the great contemporary (of their day) museums, and then think of the name hanging over the front entrance. Guggenheim. Getty. Gardner. Et al. They were all collectors that embraced 'new' art that wasn't being adopted by the status quo. (And even so Isabella famously avoided Impressionist works by Degas!) So they built their own and stuffed them full of their own collections. Only much later, with new and younger boards throwing money around, did the old school museums play (and pay up for) catch up. And even then, dragged in kicking and screaming. This is why the oldest are so weak in 20th century art. And it's why we're so rich in comic art and nobody else is!

 

This is exactly what I've argued before, and there are probably only a couple of people in the hobby who could realistically pull it off, as it would easily be an 8-figure endeavor (and that's not even including the art) to do it in a location and on a scale that would be meaningful and to a level that everyone here would love to see.

 

Why would it need to be an individual? Warner Bros and Disney probably have the funds to pull it off.

[malvin]

Observation: New money builds new museums. Old money scoffs, ignores, then begrudgingly plays catch up.

 

Want to see comic art in a museum? Build one and finance it's operation in perpetuity. This is the only way it's going to happen. Think of the great contemporary (of their day) museums, and then think of the name hanging over the front entrance. Guggenheim. Getty. Gardner. Et al. They were all collectors that embraced 'new' art that wasn't being adopted by the status quo. (And even so Isabella famously avoided Impressionist works by Degas!) So they built their own and stuffed them full of their own collections. Only much later, with new and younger boards throwing money around, did the old school museums play (and pay up for) catch up. And even then, dragged in kicking and screaming. This is why the oldest are so weak in 20th century art. And it's why we're so rich in comic art and nobody else is!

 

This is exactly what I've argued before, and there are probably only a couple of people in the hobby who could realistically pull it off, as it would easily be an 8-figure endeavor (and that's not even including the art) to do it in a location and on a scale that would be meaningful and to a level that everyone here would love to see.

 

Why would it need to be an individual? Warner Bros and Disney probably have the funds to pull it off.

 

Those 2 would have the funds, but they have no reason to do it. Only someone who loves the hobby would do something like that.

 

Malvin

[delekkerste]

Those 2 would have the funds, but they have no reason to do it. Only someone who loves the hobby would do something like that.

 

Exactly. These companies are in the business of selling entertainment, not running art museums.

 

Not to mention, in the remote chance that Disney did want to do something like this, can you imagine what such an entity would look like? I guarantee you that it would look like a Disney Store with a few pieces of art here and there. Nobody wants that.

[westform]

Observation: The wealthier (or more obsessed) a collector gets, the less he looks back.

 

Let me explain. Having moved through many collecting hobbies over decades...I've never seen a collector move from a lower-end segment to a higher-end, then as income/wealth stagnates (as it does for us all eventually, just a matter of time), go back to the less expensive, more common examples or even whole hobbies. Think of the things you dreamed of as a kid, one day owning...a complete run of whatever books you were into at the time. The rookie card of whatever player was hot, or retiring, or entering the HOF. Stamps. Etc. You made lawn-mowing money, your income defined your collecting dreams. You grew up, made a lot more, your new income re-defined your collecting dreams. Then you were laid off, got a lower-paying job, retired. Did you go back to those $10 comics and $5 cards? How about those $10 mixed lots of international stamps? Or a lifetime subscription to Playboy? No. No. And no.

 

After paying $50k for a splash, $100k for a cover, who's going back to filling in $200 panel pages? Apply to yourself with any numbers and items you're into. I've seen the income and dream cycle play out within myself and many, many others, again over decades and so many different hobbies. Nobody goes back. They move forward, until they can't anymore, then quit. And are usually restless for a bit and die. Or just die.

 

I hear what you are saying; nice post. But, I disagree. I find it to be more the rule than the exception with the people I know in the hobby, that as prices have gone stratospheric, they have looked elsewhere to fulfill their collecting 'bug'. And, yes, many have sold covers and high end pieces that they bought much cheaper and put the proceeds into panel pages and the rest in one of their pockets. Just look at CAF and you can see this trend playing out. I know a few who have come and gone, but most of my cronies have just backed off or changed focus.

 

I for one, have bought many, many 5 figure pieces and some 6 figure pieces over the years. I sell some now as profits are too good to turn down. I still have a few in my collection, but admittedly, I don't play in the over 50k sandbox anymore. My kids are at an age that I spend more money and time on their and our collective pursuits; than on my collecting. But, I still buy OA all the time. My interests have always been broad so while many of you categorize pieces into A, B, C, etc. I don't. An early Dell Little Lulu cover is something I enjoy and so will buy to look at for a time until it's time for it to go.(Probably to my kids as we read these books together) Likewise, a Kirby pencil piece, or Don Rosa Duck page. Or a Dennis the Menace daily or Eisner Spirit page.

 

I'm not naïve, I understand the markets and what affects prices, but I can quite easily go back to a more modest budget and pursue panel pages instead of covers, or esoteric instead of mainstream pieces of art. I now, and I think many collectors do also, use more of a monthly budget approach to collecting. If 10 years ago you could buy a decent cover for 2k, and that was your budget for the month, then now you will spend that same 2k of a panel page of similar subject or broaden your horizens within the hobby to seek out or learn about new artists that you might not have considered in the past. If you still have the same monthly budget; less if your budget falls. This is my belief and how I collect; but I do admit that some collectors will see those big gains after say a 5 year period, or longer, and either be sticker shocked out of collecting what they started with, or will simply cash in and run screaming back to the real world. Maybe their egos don't allow them to move down to the 'B' game, but I suspect those folks aren't in the hobby for the long run anyway. Or, they just need to stay single, stay rich and getting richer, and keep climbing the ladder of OA inflation. Hopefully, it works out in the end for all of us!

[delekkerste]

I'm not naïve, I understand the markets and what affects prices, but I can quite easily go back to a more modest budget and pursue panel pages instead of covers, or esoteric instead of mainstream pieces of art. I now, and I think many collectors do also, use more of a monthly budget approach to collecting. If 10 years ago you could buy a decent cover for 2k, and that was your budget for the month, then now you will spend that same 2k of a panel page of similar subject or broaden your horizens within the hobby to seek out or learn about new artists that you might not have considered in the past. If you still have the same monthly budget; less if your budget falls. This is my belief and how I collect; but I do admit that some collectors will see those big gains after say a 5 year period, or longer, and either be sticker shocked out of collecting what they started with, or will simply cash in and run screaming back to the real world. Maybe their egos don't allow them to move down to the 'B' game, but I suspect those folks aren't in the hobby for the long run anyway. Or, they just need to stay single, stay rich and getting richer, and keep climbing the ladder of OA inflation. Hopefully, it works out in the end for all of us!

 

I definitely see some of my OA friends who have been priced out in recent years moving down-market. Heck, I'm starting to do a bit of that myself (as you'll see when I get my Heritage winnings from this past auction!) Though, I've also seen some people who were playing in the deep end of the pool just quit altogether (including longtime stalwarts of the hobby).

 

While there are of course exceptions to the rule, I think it's generally true that one can only retro-fit their interests so much. I'm certainly not going back to collecting the kinds of penny ante things that Aelhra described in his post (all of which I bought at some point in my life...comics, cards, stamps, coins all generally at the lower end) no matter how high OA prices get.

[westform]

While there are of course exceptions to the rule, I think it's generally true that one can only retro-fit their interests so much. I'm certainly not going back to collecting the kinds of penny ante things that Aelhra described in his post (all of which I bought at some point in my life...comics, cards, stamps, coins all generally at the lower end) no matter how high OA prices get.

 

Agree in a sense, but perhaps you have just gotten bit bad by the OA bug... As most of us have experienced over time, it's hard to surpass the collecting 'feeling' we get when we hold the original that the artist and writer held and created. I too can't go back to comics, cards, stamps etc. Heck, I lost interest years ago in high end comics (Cap A#1, Tec#27, etc) even when I was in high gear! Even at the high end, they seem removed from the creative process and in that sense more mass produced. But, I can still get a happy, happy when I open a package and hold an early twice up Dennis page like the one that came in today for about $200.

 

[freshbaked-migration]

Damn, that is a nice one! Maybe my pages are overpriced 8)

[adamstrange]

a page which is selling for more than its weight in flawless diamonds and think, "surely not!"

Diamonds are common. You've fallen victim to the DeBeers marketing machine.

[adamstrange]

Observation: New money builds new museums. Old money scoffs, ignores, then begrudgingly plays catch up.

 

Want to see comic art in a museum? Build one and finance it's operation in perpetuity. This is the only way it's going to happen. Think of the great contemporary (of their day) museums, and then think of the name hanging over the front entrance. Guggenheim. Getty. Gardner. Et al. They were all collectors that embraced 'new' art that wasn't being adopted by the status quo. (And even so Isabella famously avoided Impressionist works by Degas!) So they built their own and stuffed them full of their own collections. Only much later, with new and younger boards throwing money around, did the old school museums play (and pay up for) catch up. And even then, dragged in kicking and screaming. This is why the oldest are so weak in 20th century art. And it's why we're so rich in comic art and nobody else is!

I've read a variety of books about the art world and museums (a couple recommended by Gene) and this squares with what they say. Museum budgets are very limited therefore what they show is very much dependent on what they receive in donations of artwork and maintenance funds. Special exhibits operate the same way. What gets displayed is not necessarily what the academic/scholarly/curatorial staff believe is the best art.

[Hekla]

Not being discussed is the 'trickle down' effect (or trickle up, depending on your perspective). I think I am more representational of the 'New Blood' in the market. I started buying OA in 2010 and my first purchases were of the 'that's cool!' Or 'I remember that' variety, almost always less than $200. Now that my OA knowledge and artistic appreciation has grown, I'm more discerning with my discretionary spending, and the pieces I'm stretching for now typically are in the $500-2000 range. As a result, I'm selling off a few of my earlier purchases to help fund those purchases. One specific CAF member I've bought from is stretching to buy $5000 and up pieces and I'd imagine that the seller of those pieces is stretching to buy bigger pieces too. It's a ladder effect (or maybe pyramid might be a better analogy) in that It seems (from my perspective) that most new blood is coming in towards the bottom and helping push the more established collectors up.

[heartened]

Gene, that is the part I am having trouble with. Long time OA collector notices superhero cultural saturation and from there assumes that Kirby / Sinnot Thing transformation page will always be in great demand? I get that cultural fascination means Koons can sell more statues, but to go from there to there will always be great interest in the historical /artistic merit of an OA page seems like a helluva stretch.

 

It might be a stretch to you and me, but, trust me when I say that this is the overwhelming consensus opinion in the hobby right now. Now, not everyone might agree that, say, a Ron Wilson Thing transformation page will always be in great demand, but nearly everyone believes that a Kirby/Sinnott page of such will be. Hell, most would argue that Kirby/Sinnott FF pieces will only become regarded as more historic and of greater artistic merit in the future - just look at how many people here believe this material will eventually end up in the great museums of the world.

 

Several longtime collectors have even argued as much here on the Boards - remember Hari's anecdote/argument recently about how his son and most of his friends dressed up as superheroes for Halloween, and that, with so many people being exposed to and falling in love with (ubiquitous) superheroes these days, surely some of them will seek out at least the most important and historic representations of these characters in the future. Now, Hari will be the first to concede that future generations may or may not always seek out, say, Grendel or Mage OA, maybe not even Miracleman, but I suspect that he and the vast majority of collectors believe that the top-tier vintage art from Marvel and DC (especially with the former under the steady hand of Disney) will remain not only relevant, but will only increase in prominence for the foreseeable future.

 

 

Put aside for the moment the Hulk 180 page which was truly historic. Have you had occasion to talk to the buyers of some of the buyers of the less historic (except when it comes to price) pages from the auction. I would love to hear how they are rationalizing prices. I won't single out any names, but I think the Hulk price was entirely rational in my opinion compared to where lesser pieces were selling for.

 

I actually did meet and speak recently with a relative newbie to the hobby recently, one who has been fairly active in the $20-$50K segment of the market over the past year. He is a lifelong comics fan, though is also savvy with the fine art market. He is very much of the belief that comic art is still cheap even at these levels, and is a firm believer that it will eventually catch on with fine art collectors and, especially, the celebrity crowd (Jay-Z was an example he used). I kind of got the impression, though, that to justify the prices he's been paying to get a foot in the door, he almost has to believe this, because the alternative is to accept that you're paying record prices for an art form enjoying peak exposure and nostalgia and that future price potential may not be so rosy.

 

But, it's not like guys like this are the ones scooping up all the pages that are fetching record prices. By and large, it's guys who are already in the hobby who, like I said, are stretching harder and farther to keep pace with the market (and I would definitely include myself in this camp). I mean, how many people here who regularly buy $5K+ art haven't paid a high/record price for something over the past couple of years? We're all doing it, and we all rationalize it in our own way, whether casting our lot with future generations exposed to the ubiquity of superheroes, comparing OA prices with fine art prices, or just accepting that it's the price of being involved in this hobby we all love.

 

Good post, and yes Gene is summarizing my comments accurately.

 

[pemart1966]

Observation: New money builds new museums. Old money scoffs, ignores, then begrudgingly plays catch up.

 

Want to see comic art in a museum? Build one and finance it's operation in perpetuity. This is the only way it's going to happen. Think of the great contemporary (of their day) museums, and then think of the name hanging over the front entrance. Guggenheim. Getty. Gardner. Et al. They were all collectors that embraced 'new' art that wasn't being adopted by the status quo. (And even so Isabella famously avoided Impressionist works by Degas!) So they built their own and stuffed them full of their own collections. Only much later, with new and younger boards throwing money around, did the old school museums play (and pay up for) catch up. And even then, dragged in kicking and screaming. This is why the oldest are so weak in 20th century art. And it's why we're so rich in comic art and nobody else is!

 

This is exactly what I've argued before, and there are probably only a couple of people in the hobby who could realistically pull it off, as it would easily be an 8-figure endeavor (and that's not even including the art) to do it in a location and on a scale that would be meaningful and to a level that everyone here would love to see.

 

In this case - If you build it, they will probably not come...

[Nexus]

You don't go back to a more affordable part of the hobby or a more affordable hobby.

 

Only true for trophy hunters. In terms of OA, for anyone who really loves comics-- all comics, not just a subset-- there are always options.

 

But thanks for the posts. I'm just getting caught up with this thread. Entertaining read.

[Nexus]

Case in point:

 

But, I can still get a happy, happy when I open a package and hold an early twice up Dennis page like the one that came in today for about $200.

[Bronty]

Yeah... there's still a valid point in what aelhra said though. There are things I can't go back to, myself. Besides - he was applying his point in the context of someone who is used to pay 8 figures for fine art not going backwards into comic art. That point makes sense to me. On a personal level I'm not going to go 'backward' and collect an entirely different branch of illustrated fiction - say pulps - just because they are largely affordable by comic / comic art standards, when comic prices get too high.

 

A few may do so, but most comic guys will just quit or scale back, and not branch off into pulps. The same way fine art guys aren't going to branch off into comic oa.

[delekkerste]

A few may do so, but most comic guys will just quit or scale back, and not branch off into pulps. The same way fine art guys aren't going to branch off into comic oa.

 

Good point. I think a lot of illustration art even has crossover appeal with comic book/OA collectors, and yet few have switched over even though it has certainly made economic sense to do so in many cases. Or, even within OA, superhero art has outpaced strip art by an incredible margin over the past 20-25 years, and yet we haven't seen people switch over from collecting the former to the latter in large numbers. I think there are a number of reasons for this, but all of it just furthers the point that it's not that common that people retrofit their interests and budgets (at least not across collectible/art categories). Going from high-end OA to lower-end OA is not out of the question - Dan F. is just one of several people I know who has done so - but moving from OA to pulps or fine art to OA I think is a taller order.