Comic Book Investing

[HighStakesComics]

Now that is a straw man argument if I ever saw one. The same hateful disposition you apply towards the innocent seller of a vintage GL 76 in near flawless 9.6, can be applied to whomever decides to sell you 100 shares of AAPL tomorrow, which they may have bought 14 years ago at $8, watched it shoot up to $650, split 7:1, and then leave you holding the bag. In 1929 the Dow nearly hit 400. 6 years later, in 1935 it was at 40. That's a 90% loss for investors in blue chip, American stocks. At least the poor schlub who blew $30k on the 76 can recoup 20% of his investment. There have been times throughout history where our markets have not performed much better than the single worst comic purchase used in this thread. I would argue that GL book is the exception and not the norm.

[rjrjr]

This past February I picked up Marvel Preview #4, #7 and Hulk #271 mostly because I wanted them, but also because I wanted to get them before the trailer came out. These books had been hot for more than a year at this point and anyone with even a passing interest in comics knows the clear effect of the movies on pricing, but I sold my beat, low grade copies for $100 profit on a $150 investment three months later. This wasn't some amazing prognostication on my part. This was obvious. I'm not claiming that I'm some investment guru or anything. I'm actually saying that if this is so glaringly obvious to me, isn't it obvious to everyone?

 

I would never suggest those books as great ten year investments, but in the short term they were very low risk. Buy Dr. Strange. That was better advice two years ago but there is still plenty of profit to be made in his early appearances. The Inhumans. Even if there is no movie you won't lose money on FF #45. Silver Age DC keys. Shazam #28. Plenty of great options have been mentioned in this thread.

 

How many times would you have to repeat this to make real money? Therein lies the problem with comics as an investment. I'm looking for income to live the rest of my life off of when I turn 60, not a one time sale that will allow me to buy groceries for 2 weeks.

[Jaydogrules]

Now that is a straw man argument if I ever saw one. The same hateful disposition you apply towards the innocent seller of a vintage GL 76 in near flawless 9.6, can be applied to whomever decides to sell you 100 shares of AAPL tomorrow, which they may have bought 14 years ago at $8, watched it shoot up to $650, split 7:1, and then leave you holding the bag. In 1929 the Dow nearly hit 400. 6 years later, in 1935 it was at 40. That's a 90% loss for investors in blue chip, American stocks. At least the poor schlub who blew $30k on the 76 can recoup 20% of his investment. There have been times throughout history where our markets have not performed much better than the single worst comic purchase used in this thread. I would argue that GL book is the exception and not the norm.

 

Every single example Amadeus cited was an extreme example...Hulk 181 at $26K, AF 15 at 1 million+. What about WorldCom, or gold in the 80's, or real estate 7 short years ago? So GL 76 went down after a terrible movie. So what? With multiple Justice League movies and a GL/Flash movie slated anything can happen in the next 5-10 years with that book. This is another reason why blue chip comic books are investments----if you hold them long enough, the value can come back eventually. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[HighStakesComics]

Like I said before, I've got a nice set of Forever People #1's that says you are right about that Justice League movie possibly being a big deal.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This past February I picked up Marvel Preview #4, #7 and Hulk #271 mostly because I wanted them, but also because I wanted to get them before the trailer came out. These books had been hot for more than a year at this point and anyone with even a passing interest in comics knows the clear effect of the movies on pricing, but I sold my beat, low grade copies for $100 profit on a $150 investment three months later. This wasn't some amazing prognostication on my part. This was obvious. I'm not claiming that I'm some investment guru or anything. I'm actually saying that if this is so glaringly obvious to me, isn't it obvious to everyone?

 

I would never suggest those books as great ten year investments, but in the short term they were very low risk. Buy Dr. Strange. That was better advice two years ago but there is still plenty of profit to be made in his early appearances. The Inhumans. Even if there is no movie you won't lose money on FF #45. Silver Age DC keys. Shazam #28. Plenty of great options have been mentioned in this thread.

 

Let us, then, consider some other books:

 

Avengers #4. Surely...SURELY...much more of a key, blue chip book than FF #45, right?

 

There have been 7 sales recorded at GPA for Avengers #4 in CGC 9.6 in the past four years.

 

The recorded high was $69,500 in 2012. The other sales, in order from 2010, were $64,000, $62,501, $31,070 ( ), $23,900 ( :o ), $40,000 (phew, going back up), and last but not least...$19,120 ( )

 

Blue chip book. About as blue chip as it gets. Super Marvel Silver Age key. The last sale was a whopping 72% LESS than it's most recent high.

 

Does anyone think the people who paid in the $60's were making a good investment?

 

Ok, not enough samples, ok, could be problems with individual books...

 

Then let's look at X-Men #94.

 

Another SUPER blue chip Marvel, ever popular, this time from the Bronze Age.

 

Let's look at 9.4, a good solid "investment quality" grade.

 

In 2005, the high price record was set at $2990 for this book. The 90 day average for the book now, 9 years later, is $1534. The last year's average is $1488.

 

That means the person who paid the $2990 has LOST more than 50% of his value, in 9 years. He would have been far, far better parking the money in a CD.

 

Now, not to say that bargains couldn't be had, no. But since the beginning of 2005, there have been 66 sales greater than the current 90 day average and only 33 sales less than it. And the vast majority of those sales less than the current 90 day average occurred in the last three years.

 

What's worse...the lowest sale in that time period is $1195, only $339 less than the current average...and that sale occurred in December of 2012. That means, if someone bought at the absolute market low for the last 9 years, and they only had the chance to buy that ONE COPY at that price (all others being higher), they saw only a 28% return, annualized to about 19%, over the course of a year and a half.

 

One copy. 19% per year. $339. Not counting ANY fees.

 

And don't even get STARTED on the books like X-Men #116, 120, 107, and Daredevil #168, which have all fallen from dizzying, sickening heights.

[HighStakesComics]

GL 87 might heat up with the JLA movie also. 76 has a great cover, but I'm not sold on its importance in the overall concept of "key" issues. Ill take the #7 over the 76 any day.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Now that is a straw man argument if I ever saw one. The same hateful disposition you apply towards the innocent seller of a vintage GL 76 in near flawless 9.6, can be applied to whomever decides to sell you 100 shares of AAPL tomorrow, which they may have bought 14 years ago at $8, watched it shoot up to $650, split 7:1, and then leave you holding the bag. In 1929 the Dow nearly hit 400. 6 years later, in 1935 it was at 40. That's a 90% loss for investors in blue chip, American stocks. At least the poor schlub who blew $30k on the 76 can recoup 20% of his investment. There have been times throughout history where our markets have not performed much better than the single worst comic purchase used in this thread. I would argue that GL book is the exception and not the norm.

 

Every single example Amadeus cited was an extreme example...Hulk 181 at $26K, AF 15 at 1 million+. What about WorldCom, or gold in the 80's, or real estate 7 short years ago? So GL 76 went down after a terrible movie. So what? With multiple Justice League movies and a GL/Flash movie slated anything can happen in the next 5-10 years with that book. This is another reason why blue chip comic books are investments----if you hold them long enough, the value can come back eventually. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

If GL #76 in 9.6s sees $30,000+ in the next 5-10 years, adjusted for inflation, then if I am around, I will come back to this thread in 5 years and 10 years and happily proclaim you right, and I, a miserable wretch who knows nothing about anything.

 

Deal?

[RockMyAmadeus]

What you gents are talking about is not called "investing."

 

It is called "speculation."

 

There is a fundamental difference between the two.

 

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but you need to call it what it is, and not pretend that it's solid investment planning and strategy.

 

You're throwing the dice. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Petey's Wheatcake]

This past February I picked up Marvel Preview #4, #7 and Hulk #271 mostly because I wanted them, but also because I wanted to get them before the trailer came out. These books had been hot for more than a year at this point and anyone with even a passing interest in comics knows the clear effect of the movies on pricing, but I sold my beat, low grade copies for $100 profit on a $150 investment three months later. This wasn't some amazing prognostication on my part. This was obvious. I'm not claiming that I'm some investment guru or anything. I'm actually saying that if this is so glaringly obvious to me, isn't it obvious to everyone?

 

I would never suggest those books as great ten year investments, but in the short term they were very low risk. Buy Dr. Strange. That was better advice two years ago but there is still plenty of profit to be made in his early appearances. The Inhumans. Even if there is no movie you won't lose money on FF #45. Silver Age DC keys. Shazam #28. Plenty of great options have been mentioned in this thread.

 

How many times would you have to repeat this to make real money? Therein lies the problem with comics as an investment. I'm looking for income to live the rest of my life off of when I turn 60, not a one time sale that will allow me to buy groceries for 2 weeks.

 

That's why I'm talking more about investing than earning a living with these examples. And I agree the Guardians books are only good short term purchases, because I wouldn't be at all surprised if they follow the path of Marvel Spotlight 5 for the next decade and languish at basically their post movie release numbers.

 

Maybe not, maybe Starlord is the next Iron Man and every kid brings a Rocket Raccoon backpack to school. Who knows? That's speculation, and you can lose money that way. I like my money so I'd prefer to invest instead.

 

Seriously, though. Everyone reading this knew a decade ago that Golden Age Joker covers would rise in price, right? And Amazing Fantasy 15? Was anyone surprised by it's continued growth over the last 20 years? Once again, I'm not claiming to be Miss Cleo with any of these predictions. These are iconic characters we are talking about. If you feel like Spider-Man has started to slow and prices are already too high, then I'm still going to push the Justice League. Still ever so affordable in lower grades.

 

That's another point that I would like to make. VG sells. If it's the right key 1.0 copies will sell in a heartbeat. Everything doesn't have to be a 9.8. Affordable options are everywhere.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Well, it was extremely sound investment advice in the short term. And I think there are plenty of examples of great long term investments at the moment also. Compare the prices on a low grade Justice League #1 with other silver keys, and that book still has plenty of room to grow. Would I confidently invest hundreds of $$$ in that book right now in the belief that I will see an excellent return on that investment in 10, 15 or 20 years? Absolutely. I thought the exact same thing 20 years ago and I wish that I had never sold mine.

 

Why did you sell it?

[shadroch]

This past February I picked up Marvel Preview #4, #7 and Hulk #271 mostly because I wanted them, but also because I wanted to get them before the trailer came out. These books had been hot for more than a year at this point and anyone with even a passing interest in comics knows the clear effect of the movies on pricing, but I sold my beat, low grade copies for $100 profit on a $150 investment three months later. This wasn't some amazing prognostication on my part. This was obvious. I'm not claiming that I'm some investment guru or anything. I'm actually saying that if this is so glaringly obvious to me, isn't it obvious to everyone?

 

I would never suggest those books as great ten year investments, but in the short term they were very low risk. Buy Dr. Strange. That was better advice two years ago but there is still plenty of profit to be made in his early appearances. The Inhumans. Even if there is no movie you won't lose money on FF #45. Silver Age DC keys. Shazam #28. Plenty of great options have been mentioned in this thread.

 

How many times would you have to repeat this to make real money? Therein lies the problem with comics as an investment. I'm looking for income to live the rest of my life off of when I turn 60, not a one time sale that will allow me to buy groceries for 2 weeks.

 

I will be 56 later this year, and plan on consigning $500-$800 worth of books a month at retirement. At today's prices, I'll be able to do that for at least twenty years,

It's no different than buying stocks, except they don't compound. Buy a $50 SA book twice a month and if you are 30 today, you be able to buy all the groceries you'll need at sixty.

[Petey's Wheatcake]

The examples you give are all absolutely speculation. I agree that paying 60,000 for a 9.6 Avengers 4 is ridiculous. I would have happily purchased a VG copy in 2009 if I wanted to see a return on that investment in 20 years though. I would still love one at current prices, but I think there are better options at the moment. You would make money when you retired, which is the point I'm trying to make with terms like "can't miss", but I do think you aren't trying to make the best possible investment you can with the examples that you are giving.

[Petey's Wheatcake]

I forgot to throw in the quote there. Sorry, I'm new.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

No, it's the correct definition, whether Wikipedia has it or not.

 

It doesn't "loosely" mean that at all; your definition is incorrect. You are using the term "straw man argument" incorrectly. You should probably change what you're saying, so people aren't confused by improper use of terms.

 

What does "stating a logical fallacy as a fact that is easily disputed" mean..? What is the "logical fallacy" that I have "stated as a fact" that you have "easily disputed"...?

 

I never said comics were not "investments", and I certainly never said they "aren't investments because they can go down in value."

 

(You have, however, just correctly employed a straw man argument.)

 

I said they were BAD investments, they are POOR investments, and they are.

 

 

If your scope of research begins and ends with Wikipedia, then I don't see how I can even continue this debate with you. Try scrolling a little further down in your Google search of the term and you will see that my use of the term to describe your statements are quite accurate.

 

 

Ok, Jaydog.

 

You used the term incorrectly. Own it.

 

I did not consult Wikipedia. I already knew what it meant before this conversation. That's what a fancy collidge edumacashun will do for you.

 

Furthermore, you began your entire diatribe against comic books as an investment by saying it is a waste of time based solely on a few extreme examples of where some books have greatly declined in value. It is these declines in value that you do more than just imply is why comic books should not be construed or treated as investments. While you do not literally state this, it is certainly the impression the reader is left with.

 

And then proceeded to add many more examples. I can add more, if you feel the need.

 

Again: comic books are clearly investments, of a sort. They are, however, POOR investments, and the spectacular returns of some don't negate the dismal returns of the vast, vast, VAST majority of the rest.

 

Respectfully, your opinion is wrong, though you are entitled to it.

 

You should probably save terms like "respectfully" if, right before it, you tell someone they need to "consult something besides Wikipedia"...there's nothing respectful about that.

 

 

Again, I am simply stating that the volatility present in the comic book market is present in each and every investment group or class that you can name. Comic books are traded and sold daily, like stocks and commodities. It sounds like you have taken a bath speculating on comics bought new off the shelf. Those are the breaks.

 

I did indeed. I took a huge bath speculating in comics bought new off the shelf.

 

Then I turned 21, and stopped doing that. That was in 1993.

 

 

Since then, I have constructed a successful business, buying and selling comics, after doing a few other things in between. Amazing what a little perspective did for me.

 

I only invest in blue chip keys and the rest I buy to read and enjoy. My AF 15, 6.0 will always be worth something to somebody.

 

Really? You cannot foresee any circumstance in which your AF #15 will be worthless, even to you?

 

I may make money or lose money if I ever decide to sell it. But one thing is for sure....I will be able to sell it to someone should I ever have to. That makes it a type of asset, and assets can be invested in. And like every other investment I stand an equal chance to make money as I do to lose money.

 

So yes, comic books can be investments

 

-J.

 

Again: no one said they couldn't be. That you keep continuing to say that I DID, and then argue against that statement that I never made, is a textbook example of a strawman argument.

 

And if you LOSE money, then you have made a...watch me now...BAD investment! Ta Da!

 

But if you really cannot conceive of a situation wherein you will not be able to sell your comics to SOMEONE...well...I hope you're right!

[Jaydogrules]

What you gents are talking about is not called "investing."

 

It is called "speculation."

 

There is a fundamental difference between the two.

 

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but you need to call it what it is, and not pretend that it's solid investment planning and strategy.

 

You're throwing the dice. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

All investing is speculating. Nobody invests with the expectation or hope that their investment decreases in value. At least with comics there is an additional and intrinsic entertainment value that you do not get with stocks and bonds.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Now that is a straw man argument if I ever saw one. The same hateful disposition you apply towards the innocent seller of a vintage GL 76 in near flawless 9.6, can be applied to whomever decides to sell you 100 shares of AAPL tomorrow, which they may have bought 14 years ago at $8, watched it shoot up to $650, split 7:1, and then leave you holding the bag. In 1929 the Dow nearly hit 400. 6 years later, in 1935 it was at 40. That's a 90% loss for investors in blue chip, American stocks. At least the poor schlub who blew $30k on the 76 can recoup 20% of his investment. There have been times throughout history where our markets have not performed much better than the single worst comic purchase used in this thread. I would argue that GL book is the exception and not the norm.

 

Hateful disposition...?

 

 

You are comparing the absolute worst period in the US Stock Market in HISTORY...

 

...with something that has become commonplace in the comics industry since 2009.

 

That sale of GL #76 in 9.6 has been repeated all over the comics industry.

 

See my Avengers #4 example above.

 

There are more. Lots more.

 

[oakman29]

The real money made is the guy who bought these things when new at .12-.15 cents,and are realizing the prices they command now.

[The-Collector]

What you gents are talking about is not called "investing."

 

It is called "speculation."

 

There is a fundamental difference between the two.

 

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but you need to call it what it is, and not pretend that it's solid investment planning and strategy.

 

You're throwing the dice. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

All investing is speculating. Nobody invests with the expectation or hope that their investment decreases in value. At least with comics there is an additional and intrinsic entertainment value that you do not get with stocks and bonds.

 

-J.

 

In my definitions of investing and speculating the two are not at all equivalent. And all investment is certainty not speculation. Both aim at making money but the philosophy behind both is very different.

[Petey's Wheatcake]

 

Well, it was extremely sound investment advice in the short term. And I think there are plenty of examples of great long term investments at the moment also. Compare the prices on a low grade Justice League #1 with other silver keys, and that book still has plenty of room to grow. Would I confidently invest hundreds of $$$ in that book right now in the belief that I will see an excellent return on that investment in 10, 15 or 20 years? Absolutely. I thought the exact same thing 20 years ago and I wish that I had never sold mine.

 

Why did you sell it?

 

To invest in a "legitimate" business with a proven track record. What a fool I was. Should have stuck with comics.

[dupont2005]

Lets not forget most of these "investments" were originally priced at $.10-$.15. Even mid-grade JLA's and Sgt Fury's going for $15 have gone up 10,000%+. The majority of books get a 5-10% bump in the guide. I'm not saying to roll 20% of your 401k into a Showcase #4, but to say that books are a poor investment is inaccurate, especially when 5 year CD's are yielding 1.5%.

What are uncirculated nickels and dimes from the era going for?

 

Would it have been better to buy a fifteen cent comic and hope it doesn't get damaged over the course of the next forty years, or just put that nickel and dime away in uncirculated condition and cash it in forty years later? Do you think the comic will climb a steady ten thousand percent every four decades or so?