Comic Book Investing

Jaydogrules · June 26, 2014

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!

I give up. You obviously have a different interpretation of what a straw man argument is, and which one of us has been making one. The fact that u keep trying to challenge my usage of the term is, ironically, in itself another straw man argument you are employing meant to deflect attention from your misguided opinions.

Additionally, the fact that you continue to talk about what a terrible investment comics have been for those certain buyers of those certain books, while failing to take into consideration the spectacular windfall the SELLERS of those books simultaneously received is truly baffling to me.

-J.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

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.

Again, you are incorrect.

If I invest my money at my local FDIC insured bank, I am guaranteed a....(RMA takes a quick break to check out the current CD rates at BofA....) .15% APY on a $10,000 CD for 4 years.

That may be next to nothing, but I will tell you precisely what it is NOT: speculating. My money is earning interest. It is GUARANTEED not to decrease (though there is inflation to contend with, which applies to everything.)

Bank of America is FDIC insured. If it should fail, my deposits are insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The only way the FDIC fails is if the United States Government fails.

In other words, civilization as we know it would have to fall before my money deposited in a CD would be at risk.

And...I could be wrong, but the intrinsic value of GL #76 is about $3, or the cost of a reprint. That is what it would cost to obtain the intrinsic entertainment value contained in the pages of the original.

shadroch · June 26, 2014

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.

Or the guy who buys them at a garage sale for a buck each, and doesn't tie up his capital for twenty years.

oakman29 · June 26, 2014

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.

Or the guy who buys them at a garage sale for a buck each, and doesn't tie up his capital for twenty years.

(thumbs u

Jaydogrules · June 26, 2014

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.

Again, you are incorrect.

If I invest my money at my local FDIC insured bank, I am guaranteed a....(RMA takes a quick break to check out the current CD rates at BofA....) .15% APY on a $10,000 CD for 4 years.

That may be next to nothing, but I will tell you precisely what it is NOT: speculating. My money is earning interest. It is GUARANTEED not to decrease (though there is inflation to contend with, which applies to everything.)

Bank of America is FDIC insured. If it should fail, my deposits are insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The only way the FDIC fails is if the United States Government fails.

In other words, civilization as we know it would have to fall before my money deposited in a CD would be at risk.

And...I could be wrong, but the intrinsic value of GL #76 is about $3, or the cost of a reprint. That is what it would cost to obtain the intrinsic entertainment value contained in the pages of the original.

I don't think any person with an ounce of financial common sense would consider a .15% CD as an "investment account". It is in fact merely a savings account. "Investing" involves risk. Taking risks means you are "speculating" on a positive return.

Hence all investing is speculating be it comics, real estate, mutual funds, commodities, etc.

Happy collecting!

-J.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

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!

I give up. You obviously have a different interpretation of what a straw man argument is, and which one of us has been making one. The fact that u keep trying to challenge my usage of the term is, ironically, in itself another straw man argument you are employing meant to deflect attention from your misguided opinions.

:ohnoez:

I think you just opened a wormhole in the board!

Look, Jaydog, you didn't know what a "straw man argument" was (it is NOT an "easily refuted argument, easily knocked down, like a "straw man"'), and you were corrected. I am not "challenging" anything, I am correcting your incorrect use of the term.

And if I was trying to "deflect attention" from my "misguided opinions"...why would I keep stating them, over and over again...?

I'm not sure logic is your strong suit.

Nothing personal, however, so I hope you don't take it personally.

Additionally, the fact that you continue to talk about what a terrible investment comics have been for those certain buyers of those certain books, while failing to take into consideration the spectacular windfall the SELLERS of those books simultaneously received is truly baffling to me.

-J.

Now you're just repeating what blazin said. :facepalm: I already explained to you why those were NOT "investment strategies" for those sellers, because YOU DO NOT KNOW what those sellers paid for those books, WHEN they paid for them, or WHY they bought them! If you have no idea what the seller paid for the item, when he/she bought it, and why, you cannot POSSIBLY make the claim that they saw "spectacular windfalls", because you have NO IDEA if that's true! And there's no way to prove it, for the vast majority of situations!

It's a ludicrous argument to make. If you cannot demonstrate the data, there is no argument.

meh

Come on, now, no late night drinking clouding our reason!

shadroch · June 26, 2014

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.

Again, you are incorrect.

If I invest my money at my local FDIC insured bank, I am guaranteed a....(RMA takes a quick break to check out the current CD rates at BofA....) .15% APY on a $10,000 CD for 4 years.

That may be next to nothing, but I will tell you precisely what it is NOT: speculating. My money is earning interest. It is GUARANTEED not to decrease (though there is inflation to contend with, which applies to everything.)

Bank of America is FDIC insured. If it should fail, my deposits are insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The only way the FDIC fails is if the United States Government fails.

In other words, civilization as we know it would have to fall before my money deposited in a CD would be at risk.

And...I could be wrong, but the intrinsic value of GL #76 is about $3, or the cost of a reprint. That is what it would cost to obtain the intrinsic entertainment value contained in the pages of the original.

Buying a CD is not investing. There is a world of difference between saving money and investing.

Jaydogrules · June 26, 2014

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!

I give up. You obviously have a different interpretation of what a straw man argument is, and which one of us has been making one. The fact that u keep trying to challenge my usage of the term is, ironically, in itself another straw man argument you are employing meant to deflect attention from your misguided opinions.

I think you just opened a wormhole in the board!

Look, Jaydog, you didn't know what a "straw man argument" was (it is NOT an "easily refuted argument, easily knocked down, like a "straw man"'), and you were corrected. I am not "challenging" anything, I am correcting your incorrect use of the term.

And if I was trying to "deflect attention" from my "misguided opinions"...why would I keep stating them, over and over again...?

I'm not sure logic is your strong suit.

Nothing personal, however, so I hope you don't take it personally.

Additionally, the fact that you continue to talk about what a terrible investment comics have been for those certain buyers of those certain books, while failing to take into consideration the spectacular windfall the SELLERS of those books simultaneously received is truly baffling to me.

-J.

Now you're just repeating what blazin said. I already explained to you why those were NOT "investment strategies" for those sellers, because YOU DO NOT KNOW what those sellers paid for those books, WHEN they paid for them, or WHY they bought them! If you have no idea what the seller paid for the item, when he/she bought it, and why, you cannot POSSIBLY make the claim that they saw "spectacular windfalls", because you have NO IDEA if that's true! And there's no way to prove it, for the vast majority of situations!

It's a ludicrous argument to make. If you cannot demonstrate the data, there is no argument.

Come on, now, no late night drinking clouding our reason!

Here you go Amadeus:

http://i.word.com/idictionary/straw%20man

Always up for a lively debate. Buzzed or not.

-J.

Underground44 · June 26, 2014

Isn't it funny how no one ever loses money on "investing" in comic books?

I'm always hearing stories about people buying stacks of moderns and then investing in SA or BA books.

Funny how we never hear about the thousands of books that die in long boxes or are never sold when the movies that are "in development" never eventuate.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

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.

Again, you are incorrect.

If I invest my money at my local FDIC insured bank, I am guaranteed a....(RMA takes a quick break to check out the current CD rates at BofA....) .15% APY on a $10,000 CD for 4 years.

That may be next to nothing, but I will tell you precisely what it is NOT: speculating. My money is earning interest. It is GUARANTEED not to decrease (though there is inflation to contend with, which applies to everything.)

Bank of America is FDIC insured. If it should fail, my deposits are insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The only way the FDIC fails is if the United States Government fails.

In other words, civilization as we know it would have to fall before my money deposited in a CD would be at risk.

And...I could be wrong, but the intrinsic value of GL #76 is about $3, or the cost of a reprint. That is what it would cost to obtain the intrinsic entertainment value contained in the pages of the original.

I don't think any person with an ounce of financial common sense would consider a .15% CD as an "investment account". It is in fact merely a savings account. "Investing" involves risk. Taking risks means you are "speculating" on a positive return.

Hence all investing is speculating be it comics, real estate, mutual funds, commodities, etc.

Happy collecting!

-J.

An investment is the outlay of money or property acquired in anticipation of future income or profit, regardless of how small, and need not involve risk. When CDs were making 12% in 1984, would that then be "too small" to be considered an "investment" to you?

In the broadest sense, pending the collapse of Western civilization, yes, putting money in a CD is "speculating." In real terms, however, it is not. It is an investment. So, no, not all investing is speculating.

Happy collecting to you, too!

shadroch · June 26, 2014

The SEC disagrees with you. Any investment comes with a risk. Saving money in FDIC accounts is simply that- saving, not investing.

shadroch · June 26, 2014

Isn't it funny how no one ever loses money on "investing" in comic books?
I'm always hearing stories about people buying stacks of moderns and then investing in SA or BA books.

Funny how we never hear about the thousands of books that die in long boxes or are never sold when the movies that are "in development" never eventuate.

That's stupid. No one said no one loses money investing in comics. There is a huge difference between informed buying and rampant speculation.

Underground44 · June 26, 2014

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.

Investment is putting money into something with the expectation of making a profit ie. Property which is a proven way to make money long term.

Speculation is HOPE of gain but with the RISK of loss.

Big difference.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

Here you go Amadeus:

http://i.word.com/idictionary/straw%20man

Always up for a lively debate. Buzzed or not.

-J.

Yes, i.word has correctly defined the term.

"a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated"

What you're not understanding here is the part of "set up by whom"?

And the answer to that question is "by the person attempting to discredit the opponent."

In other words....

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

See the straw man in there? It's the statement "I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Senator Jones only said we should not fund the attack submarine program. Not funding the attack submarine program does not, prima facie, mean that we will be left defenseless. The attack submarine program is, of course, but one aspect of our defense. Not funding it would not leave us defenseless, yet that is the argument the speaker tries to make.

In other words, he distorted what Senator Jones said (straw man) and then knocked down that distortion.

(This is, of course, a fictitious example.)

Senator Jones' argument is simply that we should not fund the attack submarine program. That is NOT a "straw man argument", because he's stating his own view, not distorting what someone else said and then arguing against that distortion. You may think "not funding the attack submarine program" is an easily refuted position (depending on details unknown to us), but that doesn't make it a "straw man" argument.

If I distorted what YOU said, and then presented that distortion as YOUR actual argument, then YES, I would be making a straw man argument. The definition at i.word is better explained right below in the FULL definition, which states:

"a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted "

See the word "opposition" there? It necessarily means "in opposition to someone else's argument." And the response is weak or imaginary (in other words, a distortion of what the first speaker actually said.)

Lots of words, but I hope that clears it up.

Late night pedagogy!

PS. None of my arguments were "easily refuted" either. Posted lots of data, no one else posted much of any, outside of anecdotes.

Jaydogrules · June 26, 2014

Here you go Amadeus:

http://i.word.com/idictionary/straw%20man

Always up for a lively debate. Buzzed or not.

-J.

Yes, i.word has correctly defined the term.

"a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated"

What you're not understanding here is the part of "set up by whom"?

And the answer to that question is "by the person attempting to discredit the opponent."

In other words....

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

See the straw man in there? It's the statement "I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Senator Jones only said we should not fund the attack submarine program. Not funding the attack submarine program does not, prima facie, mean that we will be left defenseless. The attack submarine program is, of course, but one aspect of our defense. Not funding it would not leave us defenseless, yet that is the argument the speaker tries to make.

In other words, he distorted what Senator Jones said (straw man) and then knocked down that distortion.

(This is, of course, a fictitious example.)

Senator Jones' argument is simply that we should not fund the attack submarine program. That is NOT a "straw man argument", because he's stating his own view, not distorting what someone else said and then arguing against that distortion. You may think "not funding the attack submarine program" is an easily refuted position (depending on details unknown to us), but that doesn't make it a "straw man" argument.

If I distorted what YOU said, and then presented that distortion as YOUR actual argument, then YES, I would be making a straw man argument. The definition at i.word is better explained right below in the FULL definition, which states:

"a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted "

See the word "opposition" there? It necessarily means "in opposition to someone else's argument." And the response is weak or imaginary (in other words, a distortion of what the first speaker actually said.)

Lots of words, but I hope that clears it up.

Late night pedagogy!

PS. None of my arguments were "easily refuted" either. Posted lots of data, no one else posted much of any, outside of anecdotes.

Your anecdote is "an" example of the definition but not the only one. The definition itself stands on its own and establishes my proper usage of the term. But I do appreciate your professorial approach to posting. (thumbs u

-J.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

Any investment comes with a risk.

Of course, that's not true, unless we include civilization-ending type risk.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

Here you go Amadeus:

http://i.word.com/idictionary/straw%20man

Always up for a lively debate. Buzzed or not.

-J.

Yes, i.word has correctly defined the term.

"a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated"

What you're not understanding here is the part of "set up by whom"?

And the answer to that question is "by the person attempting to discredit the opponent."

In other words....

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

See the straw man in there? It's the statement "I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Senator Jones only said we should not fund the attack submarine program. Not funding the attack submarine program does not, prima facie, mean that we will be left defenseless. The attack submarine program is, of course, but one aspect of our defense. Not funding it would not leave us defenseless, yet that is the argument the speaker tries to make.

In other words, he distorted what Senator Jones said (straw man) and then knocked down that distortion.

(This is, of course, a fictitious example.)

Senator Jones' argument is simply that we should not fund the attack submarine program. That is NOT a "straw man argument", because he's stating his own view, not distorting what someone else said and then arguing against that distortion. You may think "not funding the attack submarine program" is an easily refuted position (depending on details unknown to us), but that doesn't make it a "straw man" argument.

If I distorted what YOU said, and then presented that distortion as YOUR actual argument, then YES, I would be making a straw man argument. The definition at i.word is better explained right below in the FULL definition, which states:

"a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted "

See the word "opposition" there? It necessarily means "in opposition to someone else's argument." And the response is weak or imaginary (in other words, a distortion of what the first speaker actually said.)

Lots of words, but I hope that clears it up.

Late night pedagogy!

PS. None of my arguments were "easily refuted" either. Posted lots of data, no one else posted much of any, outside of anecdotes.

Your anecdote is "an" example of the definition but not the only one. The definition itself stands on its own and establishes my proper usage of the term. But I do appreciate your professorial approach to posting. (thumbs u

-J.

lol

Whatever you say, oh stubborn one. Wisdom is proved right by all of her children.

:cloud9:

But I *am* glad you didn't type "ur." (thumbs u

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

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.

This pretty much sums up the entire discussion.

"Making a windfall"...even if you were the guy who bought the thing for 12 cents, and even if you, against every odd imaginable, managed to keep it for 50 years, and even if you, against even more odds, managed to keep it in decent condition, and even if you, against even more odds, managed to get it slabbed by CGC...

...and those odds are exponential multipliers....

....you'd still only make that windfall to cover groceries for two weeks. Or, maybe a nice trip to the Bahamas with the Mrs.

Once it's gone...it's gone, and unrepeatable, without a time machine.

The guy who amassed the short box of Fantasy #15s is one in...literally...millions.

You have better odds of winning the lottery, than to have done with that guy did.

Because he just as easily could have amassed a short box of Walt Disney's Comics & Stories #250.

That's why there is only ONE Doug Schmell with his $3 Million (a pittance in terms of real investment!) comics sale, and ONE BangZoom with his beautiful GA collection, and ONE Tom Brulato, and ONE here and ONE there.

Where are the tens of thousands of millionaires who made their fortunes in comics....?

If it was as easy as some of you are putting it...there should be a wad of them coming out everyone's ears.

Instead, there are...15? 20? 30? 50? Who made their fortunes solely by selling the comics they had amassed?

Maybe.

Out of 300 million people in this nation alone.

Hardly sound "investing" strategy, folks.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

. Everyone reading this knew a decade ago that Golden Age Joker covers would rise in price, right? .

No. Why would they? In 2004, Batman Begins was only just being filmed, Dark Knight was four years away, and the last Bat film was the atrocious Batman & Robin.

Bats was definitely NOT on the rise in 2004. So why would anyone think GA Joker covers would rise in price, any higher than other average GA books?

In fact, I sold a good heap (about 15) of GA and early SA Joker covers about three years ago. I made money on them, but not what I would have made if I'd held onto them until now.

That's the tricky thing about the future: no one knows it.

RockMyAmadeus · June 26, 2014

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.

So, you sold it because you didn't believe it was as good an investment as a "legitimate" business......

:whistle:

Archived

Comic Book Investing

1,421 posts in this topic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites