First Wolverine Page sells for $657,000!

[heartened]

Gene's argument that we are now hitting a "too high" price point, quite honestly, is coming because this is the price point where he has also had to take pause. I feel the same exact way. But the price point was 1K for some, 10K for many others, or 100K, etc. There is nothing special about the "new" highest sale than the "old" highest sale, except it is hitting most of us where it hurts now.

 

Hari, don't you think if guys like you and me are having to take pause, while there's a list of guys as long as my arm who have already passed their personal tipping points (including mutual friends of ours), that it might suggest some underlying froth and instability in the current pricing structure? It's kind of like the income inequality argument. Some inequality is necessary for a healthy economy. But if there are a few guys at the top and everyone else is effectively some form of serf...you've got problems, no?

 

Anyway, I'm really nowhere near as frustrated as people here seem to think; perhaps I've done too good a job of selling the drama, so to speak! As I've said before, I can honestly say that there's no other collection that I'd rather have than my own as it's packed full of pieces that are meaningful to me and my experience in this hobby. If there are some pieces out there that are now out of reach, I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it, and I'm still finding some cool stuff to buy at various points of the price spectrum as you've seen and will see going forward. Besides, I can always join the long list of friends in the hobby living vicariously through Mr. Sonenthal.

 

I may spend a lot of time on the Boards, but all that should really tell you is that I like to write these posts and engage with fellow collectors about topics like this, not that I'm lamenting where the hobby has gone and my position in it!

 

Hi Gene,

 

Great discussion. My point, however, is that it doesn't matter how many are at the top. A growing market that is maturing is not measured by how high the prices have gone, but rather how many tiers of pricing there are and what the fan base is. My impression, which I think we can all agree, is that all three metrics: height, tiers and breadth are increasing and thus there certainly can't be a decline anytime soon. If we start going backwards in any of these three, that is when, and only when, I will start to doubt.

 

[Nexus]

Great, great post. There was a time when people said 1K was the limit from OA, then 10K, then 100K, and now 300-500K. At every point, most well known collectors felt we were at our peak. It is true, then, that we all recalibrate as new data and price points arrive and are digested. In this context, I think it is most unwise to keep on predicting doom and gloom as much as it is to predict a robust continued rise. But, the fact remains that we only have proof, so far, for the latter, and very little price points showing any decline in any area of this market (so far). Gene's argument that we are now hitting a "too high" price point, quite honestly, is coming because this is the price point where he has also had to take pause. I feel the same exact way. But the price point was 1K for some, 10K for many others, or 100K, etc. There is nothing special about the "new" highest sale than the "old" highest sale, except it is hitting most of us where it hurts now.

 

But, unlike some, I do not think this hurts the hobby at all. On the contrary, we are just now developing a mature market, where people have to come in at different levels. New comic book collectors by and large don't come in thinking they can find and afford AF 15, Action 1, etc. - they set their sites on second, third, fourth tier issues, and the hobby has over time identified those issues, and people collecting those issues have the same sense of pride in finding those books that the richest collectors have in finding an Action 1. As time goes by, OA collectors will also find this tier system, and collectors will happily segregate to the tier they can afford and, yes, find immense pleasure in their own sand box.

 

Like Felix, I continue to buy 1-5K pieces as much as I buy 50-100K pieces, and surprisingly find them both equally exciting. I bought that super Michael Golden page for between 5-10K and have another piece coming in soon (that I will share when it arrives) that is a more iconic and expensive cover. I can live in both worlds, and others I suspect will too. So, yes, we can go "backwards" in our collecting, because, guess what, both the 100K piece and the 5K piece are one-of-a kind pieces that you simply can't compare to each other. That's the beauty of this hobby, and why someone who owns a 5K piece should and does feel just as proud of their acquisition as the owner of the Hulk 180 page. The owner of the Hulk 180 page, for all his wealth, still can't buy the 5K page you have That's yours, and yours alone.

 

 

All good points, Hari. Regarding the "tier system", we've already seen this in the OA hobby. The cover is king. Can't afford (or don't want to pay for) a cover? Then find a splash. Splashes too pricey? Then it's a panel page. And so on.

 

We've seen collectors who, faced with the high cost and scarcity of Byrne X-MEN pages, then turn to PMS and Alan Davis (not Gene, the guy before him). Beyond artists, we see this with certain titles. I know a lot of collectors who, if they can't get a WATCHMEN or V FOR VENDETTA or SANDMAN page, then look for examples from other series that are also acclaimed for their stories. Thus, titles like PREACHER and Y: THE LAST MAN become orbiting satellites. Eventually, they may move up a tier, and other series will take their place on want lists.

 

Meanwhile, I don't think anyone views what they collect as consolation prizes. The same challenge, and joy, in finding prized pieces exists at all levels. As you say, regardless of the tier, each piece is unique and yours alone.

[Nexus]

While a choice vintage piece might cost 100x as much as a nice modern example, I find that in most cases I get much more enjoyment out of several nice modern examples than one blue chip vintage piece.

 

Blue chip is special. I love all OA, but blue chip is blue chip. The HULK #180 page is blue chip. I'd take that over $657K worth of modern art. No question.

 

But forget blue chip. With where values are right now, the choice can be between a 6-inch stack of new OA...vs. a SINGLE "B" vintage example. The DKR page and the Buscema AVENGERS splash from this last auction, while both nice, I would consider to be "B" examples. And they went for $50K each. $50K will easily buy a 6-inch stack of new art, a stack that would also include multiple "A" examples for fans of that work.

 

For the investor-types, whose primary concern is future value...maybe the "B" vintage page will prove to be the better buy in the long run. For collectors and fans, though...a 6-inch stack of choice OA from modern series they read and enjoy is pretty freakin' sweet. And I'd take that for my own collection all day long over a single vintage example that I didn't love and/or wasn't truly blue chip.

[kbmcvay]

Blue chip is special. I love all OA, but blue chip is blue chip. The HULK #180 page is blue chip. I'd take that over $657K worth of modern art. No question.

 

But forget blue chip. With where values are right now, the choice can be between a 6-inch stack of new OA...vs. a SINGLE "B" vintage example. The DKR page and the Buscema AVENGERS splash from this last auction, while both nice, I would consider to be "B" examples. And they went for $50K each. $50K will easily buy a 6-inch stack of new art, a stack that would also include multiple "A" examples for fans of that work.

 

For the investor-types, whose primary concern is future value...maybe the "B" vintage page will prove to be the better buy in the long run. For collectors and fans, though...a 6-inch stack of choice OA from modern series they read and enjoy is pretty freakin' sweet. And I'd take that for my own collection all day long over a single vintage example that I didn't love and/or wasn't truly blue chip.

 

Great post.

[Garf]

While a choice vintage piece might cost 100x as much as a nice modern example, I find that in most cases I get much more enjoyment out of several nice modern examples than one blue chip vintage piece.

 

Blue chip is special. I love all OA, but blue chip is blue chip. The HULK #180 page is blue chip. I'd take that over $657K worth of modern art. No question.

 

But forget blue chip. With where values are right now, the choice can be between a 6-inch stack of new OA...vs. a SINGLE "B" vintage example. The DKR page and the Buscema AVENGERS splash from this last auction, while both nice, I would consider to be "B" examples. And they went for $50K each. $50K will easily buy a 6-inch stack of new art, a stack that would also include multiple "A" examples for fans of that work.

 

For the investor-types, whose primary concern is future value...maybe the "B" vintage page will prove to be the better buy in the long run. For collectors and fans, though...a 6-inch stack of choice OA from modern series they read and enjoy is pretty freakin' sweet. And I'd take that for my own collection all day long over a single vintage example that I didn't love and/or wasn't truly blue chip.

 

Yup. That Wolvie page ticks so many boxes, there aren't many other pieces that can do the same and right now it is still in the nostalgia zone of current collectors.

 

I think some of my low low lowly tier CAF is testament to collecting consolation prizes when it comes to titles like Sandman, Preacher or Alan Moore works. I'm just being realistic about my goals and not falling down a slippery slope which would move me into the 1k+ bracket. It's hardly the same league but certainly the same idea that you can represent some of the best runs in your collection in any bracket. Unless you are an out and out trophy hunter then it's not going to be hard to find other pieces for a collection that makes you happy.

 

I am really enjoying being in a place where I don't have to think about any investment potential of what I have, which I assume for most people is going to be an increasingly important part of the decision making process as you move up the tiers. It's very interesting to read about what is happening at the very top end where changes in the economy and new money coming into the hobby has a real impact. However, people can speculate all they like about who is going to be picking up the torch in the next 10 or next 20 years (and what shape they are going to be in) without knowing for sure what the true outcome is going to be... all I can see is that sales like this are going to send out ripples down the next couple of tiers amongst the existing pool of collectors. People don't need to take what some might consider to be a massive step backwards for this to happen, there just has to be a slight shift of focus from enough people to increase competition at the next tier down to cause others to have to re-evaluate as well. Gene has mentioned in other threads that what you buy today also kills some of tomorrow's spending power. If people are passing on pieces or sidelining them because they have other loftier goals in sight then would they come back into play now if the bar is raised further still?

[Koa]

The conversation of this thread has been such a fantastic read. I don't play in the rarefied air many of you do but I wonder though if the nostalgia that's driving prices on vintage or interest generational artists won't be the hobby's undoing down the line. Even though Superheroes are more mainstream than ever in film and other media comics themselves are an atrophying market. If the content migrates out of the form for future generations I wonder what kind of limits, if any it will impose on the original art side of things.

[tfish]

http://www.beckett.com/news/2014/05/blowouts-thomas-fish-adds-original-art-of-wolverine-debut-to-collection/

[hippiecop]

I don't often chime in, but I have to say that this is one of the most interesting and intelligent debates I have read here in quite a while. Kudos to all !

[stinkininkin]

I don't often chime in, but I have to say that this is one of the most interesting and intelligent debates I have read here in quite a while. Kudos to all !

 

Agreed, but my own personal takeaway since the Wolverine page was first offered was how out of step with the mainstream high end collectors my interests have always been, specifically, historical content versus artistic/story content. Even though I have a few pieces in my own collection that might be considered historical, the primary consideration was always aesthetic and nostalgia. It's like a light bulb has just gone on over my head since this Wolverine page was first offered, much to my own surprise after having been collecting for almost 35 years! Most of the seasoned collectors out there are probably thinking "Well, duh!", and it's actually a little embarrassing that I was so dismissive of the importance history can have on value and desirability. I get it now. It won't change the way I approach my own collecting goals, but it will make me more aware of how much more attention I will have to pay when I compete for OA that has historic overtones.

 

Scott

 

 

[Doc Joe]

http://www.beckett.com/news/2014/05/blowouts-thomas-fish-adds-original-art-of-wolverine-debut-to-collection/

 

ummm....excuse me but

 

 

 

(thumbs u

[delekkerste]

http://www.beckett.com/news/2014/05/blowouts-thomas-fish-adds-original-art-of-wolverine-debut-to-collection/

 

ummm....excuse me but

 

 

 

(thumbs u

 

:applause:

 

Apologies in advance for the below...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Comicopolis]

Jeff Koons should do a Wolverine piece.

[delekkerste]

The recent issue of Financial Analyst Journal has an article on this topic (Investing in Emotional Assets)

 

I'm surprised no one mentioned it yet!

 

Link to Summary

 

I'm a CFA Institute member and just read through the full article. Ehh...I'm not impressed, even though they generally take a cautious view towards collectibles as an investment and they identify, as I have, the "nonpecuniary dividends" one can receive from owning art/collectibles. Also, the sample data for art/collectibles is invariably derived from auction data which has a huge self-selection bias and does not take transaction and other costs into accounts (to be fair, they try to speak to these points in the paper to qualify the data).

 

My biggest problem, though, is that they use a constant 1900-2012 time period to derive average returns and volatility for the various asset classes and do not take into account the relative valuation or maturity of a given market at any point in time. For example, it is not likely that bonds at today's low interest rates will earn even the 1.5% geometric real (as in inflation-adjusted) rate of return that they've averaged over the past 212 years, nor is it likely that stocks will earn a 5.2% geometric real rate of return either from present valuation levels. Of course, take a different starting point, like 1980 for bonds or 2009 for stocks, and you would have earned many multiples of the average returns.

 

A $10,000 investment in the right OA 25 years ago might have netted you a 100+ fold return return on your investment. A $657,200 investment in the McFarlane ASM #328 cover in 2012, however, is likely to earn you a negative real rate of return over the next 25 years. I just got the new copy of Robb Report in the mail today - in the "Collection" supplement, there's a blurb about the medieval Prayerbook (the finest and most valuable of its kind) sold by the Rothschild family for $13.4 million in 1999. It re-sold again this year for a record price - of $13.6 million. Not much of a return over 15 years (negative actually once you subtract out transaction, storage and insurance costs, and hugely negative if you factor in inflation).

 

As always, it's not what you buy, it's when you buy it (and implicitly at what price) that determines your future return potential for any asset. There is no asset so inherently good and intrinsically desirable that it can't be a bad investment if bought at too high a price (of course, whether a price is "too high" is often open to debate).

 

Oh, and the paper does have one good insight which explains in a more structured manner why someone might want to buy OA even if they don't think it's a good financial investment. It's because of what they term "nonpecuniary dividends" (i.e., non-monetary benefits such as pleasure derived from viewing a piece, pride from owning a piece, access to other collectors and social networks from having a big collection, etc.) As long as the present value of expected nonpecuniary dividends exceeds the present value of expected future financial impairment, I don't see anything incongruous with someone who is not bullish continuing to buy OA anyway.

[delekkerste]

Jeff Koons should do a Wolverine piece.

 

That could actually be pretty awesome.

[malvin]

The recent issue of Financial Analyst Journal has an article on this topic (Investing in Emotional Assets)

 

I'm surprised no one mentioned it yet!

 

Link to Summary

 

I'm a CFA Institute member and just read through the full article. Ehh...I'm not impressed, even though they generally take a cautious view towards collectibles as an investment and they identify, as I have, the "nonpecuniary dividends" one can receive from owning art/collectibles. Also, the sample data for art/collectibles is invariably derived from auction data which has a huge self-selection bias and does not take transaction and other costs into accounts (to be fair, they try to speak to these points in the paper to qualify the data).

 

 

heh, when I posted the link and wondered why no one else brought it up, I was thinking specifically of you!

 

I'm not in the Finance industry, I am just a simple management consultant but there was a copy of the magazine in my office and someone mentioned that article to me since they know I collect OA so I read it and mentioned it here.

 

Of course I didn't analyze it at all, after all I'm not a CFA

 

Malvin