Comic Book Investing

[Jaydogrules]

I could sell the AF today for a small profit

 

That AF 15 is worth about double what you paid. It's a $10,000-$11,000 book now in 4.0.

 

Sure, but if i had really invested it- in Tesla, for example, it would be worth 20K now.

 

Or you could have also "invested" it in say, Research in Motion and it would be worth, what, $2k or less? Some investments will perform better than others over the same period of time, but they are all still investments.

 

-J.

[Dr. Balls]

You sold a AF15 in CGC 5.0 for $14k and then bought a 4.0 for $5200? One of the two people you were dealing with in that transaction didn't know what they were doing.

 

Congrats on getting a 4.0 for 1/3 the price of your 5.0 - that's not really investing, that's making out like a bandit.

 

Blazing Bob sold it. He gets all the credit. I was hoping he'd sell it for 12 but he got 14.

It did present well, but he is a miracle worker. He also pays at the speed of light. We talked on the weekend, check arrived Monday.

I also caught the seller at a tough time in his life. He was only into it for $200 and grading costs as he bought it in 1980, give or take a year.

 

Nice. That, my friend, is a once-in-a-lifetime deal. And you got it on an AF15.

 

I think the best I've been able to do is get a $250 book for $100.

[mintcollector]

You mean all those Charizard holofoil cards we bought for my son aren't the solution for putting him through college?

Believe it or not Pokémon shouldn`t be counted out like POGS.

I had an experience a month back.

My 25 year old nephew who has a Masters had just gotten married, and after the wedding as I was sitting with a bunch of 20 something year olds at the wedding reception. I found all the talk was about how back in the day they all collected Pokémon, and how they are all nostalgic for it.

Mind you now these were people in their mid-twenties who have just gotten their law degrees,Masters in Psychology and MBAs. These people are the ones who will have the disposable income to buy those Pokémon keys. So yeah expect some of the Pokémon stuff to have value.

 

Have you learned nothing from all those articles I posted about the fallacy of the 'rule of 25?'

 

 

[thirdgreenham]

You mean all those Charizard holofoil cards we bought for my son aren't the solution for putting him through college?

They'll be hot just after he receives his diploma.

 

[techtre2003]

If we are going to lump "hobby" and "investment" together as one and the same then sure, comics are a great investment because you can't lose buying something for enjoyment.

 

Sure you can. As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector. Unlike many people in the hobby, I am not very sanguine on the long-term prospects of the hobby due to the long-term changes in demographics, economics and cultural/technological trends that I already see (slowly) underway. Don't get me wrong, I think the hobby still has a number of good years ahead of it, but I doubt that my collection is going to be the golden goose that funds my retirement like a lot of collectors view their collections.

 

As such, whenever I buy a new piece, I mark it down by a minimum of 20% when I calculate the value of my holdings (and sometimes I'll mark its value down by as much as 2/3rds to be conservative). Some of the fine art I've bought I've marked down to zero, because I have no idea what I could get for something that illiquid when it comes to reselling it. Incidentally, I don't include any of my comic books when calculating my net worth, because I assume that the time and effort to sell it off would be more hassle than it's worth.

 

Anyway, that's kind of beside the point I was trying to make, which is that people sometimes ask me why I collect OA even if I expect it not to do that well financially over the long term. The obvious answer is: because I love it and it's what I'm passionate about and interested in. But, most of the time I am pretty rational about it, employing a kind of mental cost/benefit equation like such:

 

Estimated value of pleasure of ownership, decoration and overall good feelings minus estimated future financial loss (cost of ownership) = Net benefit/(loss) derived from buying and owning a piece of OA

 

As such, it is definitely possible to lose buying something for enjoyment if the expected/realized future loss exceeds the value of the enjoyment you get from enjoying the piece. Likewise, it is possible to come out ahead overall even if the monetary value of the purchase declines over time.

 

OK, normal people who don't put a "pleasure calculation" on everything they buy can't lose.

I don't come home from a lousy vacation and claim it was a bad investment because I only got $600 of enjoyment out of a $1,000 trip

 

My point was, if you are buying comics because you enjoy having them and know they might increase in value but are ok if they don't because you still have them to enjoy; I don't see that as investing. Ex. I don't buy shares of Apple because I think Apple is cool and if I lose money than it's no biggie because I still have Apple stock. I was just trying to differentiate between the words "investment" and "hobby" which it seems are being lumped into the same thing here for some people.

[delekkerste]

You mean all those Charizard holofoil cards we bought for my son aren't the solution for putting him through college?

Believe it or not Pokémon shouldn`t be counted out like POGS.

I had an experience a month back.

My 25 year old nephew who has a Masters had just gotten married, and after the wedding as I was sitting with a bunch of 20 something year olds at the wedding reception. I found all the talk was about how back in the day they all collected Pokémon, and how they are all nostalgic for it.

Mind you now these were people in their mid-twenties who have just gotten their law degrees,Masters in Psychology and MBAs. These people are the ones who will have the disposable income to buy those Pokémon keys. So yeah expect some of the Pokémon stuff to have value. z

 

Have you learned nothing from all those articles I posted about the fallacy of the 'rule of 25?'

 

 

How does a conversation like that even come up at a wedding reception? I'm guessing because CC started talking about his comic collecting.

 

In any case, I predict that precisely zero people at that reception will actually ever buy another Pokemon item. Also, if Pokemon and Magic the Gathering end up making a comeback, that won't necessarily prove the Rule of 25 to be valid, but, if they don't, surely that would be the final nail in that theory if things as huge as those don't come back in a big way after the predicted 25 years.

[HighStakesComics]

with that said i have stuff from the 50s that has better page color than books bagged and boarded in the 90s. go figure.

 

Not better than my X-Force # 1's and my Youngblood # 1's. I have multiple copies of each and will be super rich when I decide to finally sell them. Also Spawn # 1. Didn't see that coming, didja?

If Spawn # 1 was bought at cover price or less then you at least doubled your value.

Spawn # 1 even with it million plus print run sells for over cover.

This is without a new movie which will eventually jumpstart Spawn again.

So I am bullish on Spawn # 1.

 

So does that mean Walking Dead #100, arguably the biggest key since #19, can appreciate with its 400,000 issue run?

 

Don't some of the covers do ok? (Not talking about the fancy variants) The michone cover I think sells for $3-$5 on any given day. Not exactly an investment, true. My LCS puts 100 out on the racks in a bag and board with a $5 sticker on it and it sells to someone every week.

 

That is a comic shop comic. It'll sell for $3-$5 a pop so long as there is interest in the show. Not briskly, but to non-comic collectors wandering into the shop, etc.

 

Pretty sure #100 had a $2.99 cover price, so an LCS selling copies for $3 isn't going to help the investment thesis nor the opinion that WD #100 is a particularly hot/desirable book.

 

Not yet at least. For issues that still trade at cover this is one that could be at $25-$50 in the bat of an eye. It will all come down to how AMC handles Negan on the TV show. If they can pull it off, Id love to be sitting on a few chromium CGC 9.9's.

 

If that book pops up to $25-50 around the TV show then sell all you can as quickly as you can into that narrow window. That will be a blip, not a trend. As for 9.9s, the only people that seem to make any money on them are the ones that get the grade in a submission and sell to the label-happy collector. That is a serious niche market, and the last place to be investing comic money.

 

Here's my play. I have 35 copies I diversified amongst all variants I could buy at cover (super rares excluded). I will attempt to sell 8-12 of the less desirable (Quietley & Phillips) variants at $12-$22 in order to fund the entire purchase and pay to grade my two best chromiums. At this point I would be in the remaining 20-some copies at $0 and I can't imagine the two chromiums come in below 9.6. If I can execute, the return may yield anywhere from $600-$1500 for roughly 3-5 hours of time, spent mainly on packing and relisting. Not a home run, but a solid single or a stretch double. That is if I can pull it off. If not, I'm sitting on a bunch of 1st appearances of one of my favorite WD characters. Much more fun than another 2 shares of aapl or agu.

[MrBedrock]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

[HighStakesComics]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Yup. The TOD 10 and WD 19 are absolutely sick.

[MrBedrock]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Yup. The TOD 10 and WD 19 are absolutely sick.

I'm partial to the Johnny Craig and the Schomburg . The Dave Stevens cover is pretty incredible as well.

[thehumantorch]

You mean all those Charizard holofoil cards we bought for my son aren't the solution for putting him through college?

Believe it or not Pokémon shouldn`t be counted out like POGS.

I had an experience a month back.

My 25 year old nephew who has a Masters had just gotten married, and after the wedding as I was sitting with a bunch of 20 something year olds at the wedding reception. I found all the talk was about how back in the day they all collected Pokémon, and how they are all nostalgic for it.

Mind you now these were people in their mid-twenties who have just gotten their law degrees,Masters in Psychology and MBAs. These people are the ones who will have the disposable income to buy those Pokémon keys. So yeah expect some of the Pokémon stuff to have value. z

 

Have you learned nothing from all those articles I posted about the fallacy of the 'rule of 25?'

 

 

How does a conversation like that even come up at a wedding reception? I'm guessing because CC started talking about his comic collecting.

 

In any case, I predict that precisely zero people at that reception will actually ever buy another Pokemon item. Also, if Pokemon and Magic the Gathering end up making a comeback, that won't necessarily prove the Rule of 25 to be valid, but, if they don't, surely that would be the final nail in that theory if things as huge as those don't come back in a big way after the predicted 25 years.

 

Magic the Gathering hardly needs to comeback. Game is still very popular and collectible.

[COI]

20 years ago I put every extra dime I had into EC horror, silver age marvel and golden age Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. I loved reading and collecting all of these comics, but the obvious investment potential was the driving force in my spending habits. These were not shocking gambles I was making by putting my money into Marvel and DC, and if this thread had existed at the time, wouldn't everyone have suggested silver keys?

 

10 years later I sold them all and invested in my construction business which grew by leaps and bounds (Superman reference ) for about five years until the housing market went into the toilet and all of my builders went under, basically taking me with them. Prior to the sale of all of my beloved funny books, I had seriously considered going back into comics before making the "safe" choice which eventually left me with nothing.

 

I certainly don't think you can go wrong by simply buying what you enjoy, but intelligent investment in vintage comic books has been an almost can't miss proposition since I've been alive. Even those EC and Wonder Woman issues brought me a small profit after a decade, and the silver age keys (all G to VG at best) were obviously excellent investments.

 

Basically, I assume anyone who doesn't believe comics are a solid investment is making the argument that the bottom is going to fall out here soon. Because I honestly can't come up with many better, more obvious options for long term profit historically.

 

You're talking about a collectibles field that had roughly two decades of "opportunity buying" after they became acceptable as "legitimate investments" and before they priced everyone out of the market.

 

What do you mean by "long term"?

 

What do you mean by "profit"?

 

What do you mean by "solid investment"? 20% annualized return? 10%? 2%? 100%?

 

Do you think a Fantasy #15 9.6 at $1,100,000 is a "solid investment"?

 

How about a New Mutants #98 9.8 for $400?

 

What about a Green Lantern #76 9.6 for $37,000?

 

How about a Hulk #181 9.8 for $26,501?

 

And in those 90's, when you were buying these books, did you ever unknowingly buy books that were restored?

 

Comic buying in the 70's and 80's was a perfect time for investment. There had already been quite solid, across-the-board gains, but everything wasn't priced so high as to exclude most buyers. It was much like the coin market in the 30's and 40's. By the 50's, you could no longer find anything of any value in regular circulation; and forget keys.

 

It's easy to look back and point to gains and say "see? Look what they did!"...not so easy to point to the future and say "see? Look what they'll DO!"

 

There was even a time...horror of HORRORS!...when the bluest of blue chip "comic book investments", Silver Age Marvel keys, took a dump. It was short, but it was real, and it looked like the end had come (I speak of 1982-1985.)

 

These are straw man arguments. Every single investment class/group has taken a dump at one time or another.

 

-J.

 

 

I'm not quite sure you know what a "straw man argument" really is.

 

In case you don't, a straw man argument is where I present a distorted view of the other person's position, and then attack that as if that's what the other person actually said.

 

I'm pretty sure what you are trying to say is "irrelevant arguments."

 

But the fact that every single investment class/group has taken a dump at one time or another (which is not strictly true) supports my position.

 

 

Yes that is the Wikipedia definition. But it loosely means stating a logical fallacy as a fact that is easily disputed, ie easily knocked down like a "straw man". In this case, u state comics are not "investments" because they can (and have) gone down in value at times. My response is that yes, they can go down in value (and also up) like every other investment group and class, and if anything, that only proves that they can be treated and construed as another type of investment.

 

-J.

 

Nope.

[delekkerste]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ok how is this point. One guy collected silver dimes and has acquired them at actually 10 cents each at time of issue. Today his dimes have a silver value of $1.52

Another guy collected 10 cent comic books and has acquired them at actually 10 cents each at time of issue. Today his comics have a value higher or lower than the dimes?

 

Sure we can make cases for both, but bottom line is that the comic book guys have out performed the coinees across the board.

 

There are zero dimes which have collector value ABOVE their silver value....?

 

 

EVERY comic book has value above its cover price....?

 

 

You guys and your completely unqualified statements.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

The stock investor essentially profits off the labors of others, one of many invisible faces seeking dividends while executive boards downsize jobs, cut benefits, move businesses overseas and take food from children's mouths.

 

 

Sorry Dave, but this statement is just ridiculous.

 

Not at all. As a generalization, investment in stocks based solely on how they perform profit-wise ignores ethical issues. Some stocks which perform well for investors do so at the expense of decisions that hurt workers. I didn't pull that out of a hat, this is just a reality of life. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting all stocks should be avoided on ethical grounds. I'm just stating the facts as part of a thoughtful discussion advocating a rationale for investing in comics.

 

I reiterate, given the choices it's fair to say that investing in tangible comics, slower growth potential notwithstanding, harms no one. My opinion, OMMV.

 

 

It's "Once hot, hot again" You can never really prove it wrong, but it has surprising merit. It's a rule of thumb but you still have to watch the trends. I still can't believe I just sold a Transformers #8 cgc 9.6 for $175 last weekend. If you watch the trends you'll see things heating up that were hot before.

 

For every property that makes a comeback, there are so, so many that don't. Mintcollector once posted this debunking of the Rule of 25 which I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

In any case, how many times can one sell a Transformers #8 9.6 for $175? And how many would you have to sell to make it worth the time and effort? As one friend of mine commented about someone on the Boards who claims to consistently make money buying and reselling comics: "He must value his time at zero. That's not investing; that's working a second job in retail."

 

Spending one's time building business relationships in retail seems healthier and more honorable than making money off of others anonymously through stock investment. I'm not comparing stock speculators to drone pilots are anything, but the impersonal nature of buying stocks to reap strong returns on investment allows speculators to have clean hands regardless of how the corporations treat their employees in order to reward stockholders.

 

There rests the ethical issue.

 

How one values their time is a personal matter, as is what satisfies one's desires in the acquisition of wealth.

 

 

I'm sorry but your interpretation of the meaning of intrinsic value is just plain wrong and is clearly clouded by your obsession with stocks and disdain of the notion that comic books are and have been a wonderful money making investment for many that has rivaled or surpassed even the best stock you could name.

 

I don't normally like using Wikipedia for anything but since I'm short on time, here it is:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(ethics)

 

Stocks have exactly 0 intrinsic value. Nothing even in your prior post actually even disputed that. The intrinsic value of a comic book however is more than just the paper that it is printed on. It's the art, the nostalgia, the pop cultural significance, the creativity, the story, these things have an INTRINSIC value, and this is why we (presumably you included, but I don't know I think you would be better suited on a stock lover's forum) love comic books, and derive enjoyment from them whether they have an investment value as well or not.

 

-J.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you continue to be 100% wrong. Even the Wikipedia definition of intrinsic value talks about the value something has of itself. Stocks represent claims on real assets and earnings. They have intrinsic value separate from their perceived market value, derived from the underlying assets and cash flows. So, do bonds for that matter - by your incredibly flawed logic, bonds have no intrinsic value because you can't hold a bond, other than as a worthless piece of paper. And yet, it represents an obligation to pay a scheduled set of cash flows that can be mathematically distilled down to a concrete value.

 

What you don't get is that the intrinsic value of most comics is no more than a few bucks. The story, the creativity, etc. can all be had from a $3 reprint. That is the intrinsic value. Maybe you add a little bit of value for decorative or other purposes for the original, but, in the grand scheme of things, it's minimal. The vast majority of a vintage comic's value is derived from extrinsic value - people's perception of its rarity and desirability. That's NOT intrinsic value, no matter how much you claim it is.

 

Again, whether something has intrinsic value has no relation to whether it is a tangible or intangible asset. Until you recognize this basic fact, you will continue to be 100% wrong about your interpretation of intrinsic value.

 

This is where I strongly disagree with you. The value of collectible comics is as art, not merely paper ephemera and staples, perception of rarity/desirability notwithstanding. What you're saying is almost like arguing that Van Gogh's paintings should only be appreciated for the intrinsic value to the stretched canvass, paint and wood. Even as early strikes of Rembrandt etchings have demonstrable value as reproduced art. As an art collector you should appreciate the irony here. My point being that your argument favoring stocks seems to ignore the aesthetic value of printed comics as an art form.

 

While I'd agree that you're correct on defining intrinsic and extrinsic from a rhetorical viewpoint, your appreciation of the value of comics as an investment collectible seems sorely lacking. Your choice of intangible assets is fine strictly from an speculator's perspective, but the intrinsic value of stocks should also be scrutinized from an ethical POV since corporate decisions impact real people. Again, these are personal choices and you're free to disagree. I'm not criticizing how you or anyone else acquires personal wealth.

 

 

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

 

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

[delekkerste]

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

 

Blazin', I think we are going to get on just fine (I was actually referring to Jaydog telling me to leave the Boards and go post at CNBC.com or something ). In fact, there are very few people whose feathers I've ruffled in the past that I'm not at least friendly with now.

 

- Gene

 

P.S. - I'm 5'11" and not a goldbug, as any number of the 100+ Boardies who've met me can attest to.

[COI]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

 

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

 

You're extremely obnoxious. This thread was a decent read, minus every one of your posts.

[revat]

If we are going to lump "hobby" and "investment" together as one and the same then sure, comics are a great investment because you can't lose buying something for enjoyment.

 

Sure you can. As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector. Unlike many people in the hobby, I am not very sanguine on the long-term prospects of the hobby due to the long-term changes in demographics, economics and cultural/technological trends that I already see (slowly) underway. Don't get me wrong, I think the hobby still has a number of good years ahead of it, but I doubt that my collection is going to be the golden goose that funds my retirement like a lot of collectors view their collections.

 

As such, whenever I buy a new piece, I mark it down by a minimum of 20% when I calculate the value of my holdings (and sometimes I'll mark its value down by as much as 2/3rds to be conservative). Some of the fine art I've bought I've marked down to zero, because I have no idea what I could get for something that illiquid when it comes to reselling it. Incidentally, I don't include any of my comic books when calculating my net worth, because I assume that the time and effort to sell it off would be more hassle than it's worth.

 

Anyway, that's kind of beside the point I was trying to make, which is that people sometimes ask me why I collect OA even if I expect it not to do that well financially over the long term. The obvious answer is: because I love it and it's what I'm passionate about and interested in. But, most of the time I am pretty rational about it, employing a kind of mental cost/benefit equation like such:

 

Estimated value of pleasure of ownership, decoration and overall good feelings minus estimated future financial loss (cost of ownership) = Net benefit/(loss) derived from buying and owning a piece of OA

 

As such, it is definitely possible to lose buying something for enjoyment if the expected/realized future loss exceeds the value of the enjoyment you get from enjoying the piece. Likewise, it is possible to come out ahead overall even if the monetary value of the purchase declines over time.

 

OK, normal people who don't put a "pleasure calculation" on everything they buy can't lose.

I don't come home from a lousy vacation and claim it was a bad investment because I only got $600 of enjoyment out of a $1,000 trip

 

My point was, if you are buying comics because you enjoy having them and know they might increase in value but are ok if they don't because you still have them to enjoy; I don't see that as investing. Ex. I don't buy shares of Apple because I think Apple is cool and if I lose money than it's no biggie because I still have Apple stock. I was just trying to differentiate between the words "investment" and "hobby" which it seems are being lumped into the same thing here for some people.

 

for some, if not many people, they are the same thing. I think everyone is trying to project onto others, but in reality its not so cut and dried.

 

Lets say my nephew invented this cool game (like Risk meets Thunderstone meets Settlers of Catan). I love playing it, I love telling people about it, and my nephew needs some seed money to start it up. So my motivations are....1. I love the game, I want more people to play so I can play with more people and my wife will stop looking at me weird. 2. I love my nephew and genuinely want him to succeed and be happy, so I'm happy to help. 3. I think the game will be successful and actually make me some money.

 

Now depending on my own financial situation, and how much I like the game, and how well I think it will succeed, those three motivations might be more or less important at any given time, but I don't think there's any reason I would have to separate those reasons or choose just 1 of those motivations.

 

Comics are the same, our motivations for buying and selling them can be simple or complex, or anywhere in between, and CAN CHANGE. And I think that any attempt to project blanket statements onto others should be and will obviously met with resistance.

 

Also, its insane how many people don't understand intrinsic value.

[MrBedrock]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

If you ever get big into original art selling there are a few I hope you would give me a call about.