Comic Book Investing

[Jaydogrules]

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.

[The-Collector]

As always, there's probably a middle ground between "comics are bad investments" and speculation based purchases.

 

I've never bought a comic as an investment, but like most of the people on here, I've sold off a few at a nice profit. For me, it just occasionally happens, although never with a profit margin big enough to do anything but buy a few books to fill in runs with the proceeds.

 

There are great investment books out there, but they require more $ than I'm ever going to spend. More power to those who can. It's just another part of our hobby.

 

There does not have to be a middle ground. And to imply that there is is a common fallacy called "a false compromise".

 

On the whole most books have not appreciated in value. Those that have increased substantially do not count as no one has the level of prescience required to pick them consistently.

 

Buy and hold strategies for the long term is more speculation than sound investing in regards to comic books.

 

I would love someone to prove me wrong by demonstrating a statistically significant ability to pick books that rise in value.

[RockMyAmadeus]

From your examples you could make the point that either A.) Marvel keys are overvalued, B.) By the same standard certain ga keys are undervalued ( all star 3 & 8, more fun 73, All American 19), or C.) We are staring down the barrel of hyperinflation not seen since the Weimar Republic or perhaps D.) a bit of A, B & C all mixed together. Ill go with D. And yes, Amadeus, the 60 copies of X-Men #1 you hoarded back in 92' will still be worth $.75 a piece if gas shoots up to $100.00 a gallon.

 

 

I don't think I've EVER owned 60 copies of X-Men #1, but all my original copies are 9.8s. That means, if I pay the $20 to get them slabbed, they will be worth an average of $40. Take out eBay fees, and I'm looking at a sweet $15 profit for books I spent $1.35 each for.

 

And if I pay the $10 to get Jim Lee to SIGN them....I've just made about another $80.

 

THAT is how you play the game, my friends.

 

My point, going back to (A), is that there are circumstances...lots of them...that have made these books TERRIBLE investments over the last 10 years. Absolutely AWFUL. HIDEOUS.

 

The guy who bought that Green Lantern #76 in CGC 9.6 for $30,500...an "investment quality book" if there ever was one...has seen 75%+ of his investment evaporate into thin air...likely to never be seen again, even if he held the book for 100 years, adjusted for inflation.

 

And this was repeated all OVER the "investment quality" Silver and Bronze markets, and even affected the Gold market (though not nearly to that degree.)

 

The fact is, if you invested in "investment quality books" from 2004-2008, you've lost, big time, and you will probably never, ever recover from it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As always, there's probably a middle ground between "comics are bad investments" and speculation based purchases.

 

I've never bought a comic as an investment, but like most of the people on here, I've sold off a few at a nice profit. For me, it just occasionally happens, although never with a profit margin big enough to do anything but buy a few books to fill in runs with the proceeds.

 

There are great investment books out there, but they require more $ than I'm ever going to spend. More power to those who can. It's just another part of our hobby.

 

There does not have to be a middle ground. And to imply that there is is a common fallacy called "a false compromise".

 

On the whole most books have not appreciated in value. Those that have increased substantially do not count as no one has the level of prescience required to pick them consistently.

 

Buy and hold strategies for the long term is more speculation than sound investing in regards to comic books.

 

I would love someone to prove me wrong by demonstrating a statistically significant ability to pick books that rise in value.

 

THIS.

[Jaydogrules]

From your examples you could make the point that either A.) Marvel keys are overvalued, B.) By the same standard certain ga keys are undervalued ( all star 3 & 8, more fun 73, All American 19), or C.) We are staring down the barrel of hyperinflation not seen since the Weimar Republic or perhaps D.) a bit of A, B & C all mixed together. Ill go with D. And yes, Amadeus, the 60 copies of X-Men #1 you hoarded back in 92' will still be worth $.75 a piece if gas shoots up to $100.00 a gallon.

 

 

I don't think I've EVER owned 60 copies of X-Men #1, but all my original copies are 9.8s. That means, if I pay the $20 to get them slabbed, they will be worth an average of $40. Take out eBay fees, and I'm looking at a sweet $15 profit for books I spent $1.35 each for.

 

And if I pay the $10 to get Jim Lee to SIGN them....I've just made about another $80.

 

THAT is how you play the game, my friends.

 

My point, going back to (A), is that there are circumstances...lots of them...that have made these books TERRIBLE investments over the last 10 years. Absolutely AWFUL. HIDEOUS.

 

The guy who bought that Green Lantern #76 in CGC 9.6 for $30,500...an "investment quality book" if there ever was one...has seen 75%+ of his investment evaporate into thin air...likely to never be seen again, even if he held the book for 100 years, adjusted for inflation.

 

And this was repeated all OVER the "investment quality" Silver and Bronze markets, and even affected the Gold market (though not nearly to that degree.)

 

The fact is, if you invested in "investment quality books" from 2004-2008, you've lost, big time, and you will probably never, ever recover from it.

 

The seller of that GL 76 would beg to differ with you.

 

-J.

[HighStakesComics]

What exactly happens in GL #76 again? Green Arrow shows up, a brother busts Hals balls, and Neal Adams comes on board for a dozen or so issues? Not sure where in that equation someone came up with $30k? Sounds like something Terrell Owens financial advisor might have talked him into back in the day.

[The-Collector]

If people want to hold that there is a chance of successfully speculating on comic books I would not argue with them.

 

But I personally think there is a stark difference between risky speculation and sound investment.

[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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If people want to hold that there is a chance of successfully speculating on comic books I would not argue with them.

 

But I personally think there is a stark difference between risky speculation and sound investment.

 

THIS AGAIN.

[HighStakesComics]

Sir is Teenage Dope Slaves an actual book or is that a blatant attempt to purchase a 17 year old heroin addict? I imagine the methadone bill would offset any future appreciation.

[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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

What exactly happens in GL #76 again? Green Arrow shows up, a brother busts Hals balls, and Neal Adams comes on board for a dozen or so issues? Not sure where in that equation someone came up with $30k? Sounds like something Terrell Owens financial advisor might have talked him into back in the day.

 

Yup, it's true. Someone actually paid $30,000+ for a CGC 9.6 copy of Green Lantern #76. Did they do it to "invest"? Did they do it to own the "highest graded example that existed"?

 

Someone knows. And if it *was* an investment, it was a horrific one.

[shadroch]

you really should be putting your money into investment quality books.

 

What, exactly, IS an "investment quality" book...? From your perspective.

 

 

Books that have doubled every five years, for the last twenty, that feature characters that are not likely to lose their popularity in the next twenty years, and are priced in the $100-$500 range. Once a book crosses the $1,000 mark, its liquidity is affected greatly.

Buy below market value, hold it until you can make a 20-30% profit, and repeat.Not a flipper, but I'm also not a museum. Every book has its buying price and its selling price.

 

I was actually looking specifically for Lou's responses, but let's give it a whirl:

 

Do you have an example? $100-$500 range raw? Slabbed? Grade?

 

What are the conditions wherein these books doubled every five years, for the last twenty, and are those conditions repeatable?

 

How does one "buy below market value"...? I'm not talking about a single copy; that's easy. I'm talking about enough to make the venture worthwhile. Buying a single book doesn't really much of an investment make, at your price threshold.

 

 

 

You asked, I answered. A 30% return on 100 $100 comics is the same as a 30% return on a $10,000. comic. I find it to be even better as $10,000 comics are not very liquid.

 

I've bought about forty books from three auctions this month. Each was at least 15% below what I think I could move the book for today. Some were

Ditko Spideys, some were Kirby FFs, some were Schomburg covers.Some raw, some CGC. There is zero doubt in my mind that I'll make at least 20% off of each book, and closer to 30% off the total.

[HighStakesComics]

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.

 

 

Sir, someone parlayed a $.15 GL 76 into $30k and you are attempting to use that as the foundation of an argument for comics being a BAD investment??

[RockMyAmadeus]

From your examples you could make the point that either A.) Marvel keys are overvalued, B.) By the same standard certain ga keys are undervalued ( all star 3 & 8, more fun 73, All American 19), or C.) We are staring down the barrel of hyperinflation not seen since the Weimar Republic or perhaps D.) a bit of A, B & C all mixed together. Ill go with D. And yes, Amadeus, the 60 copies of X-Men #1 you hoarded back in 92' will still be worth $.75 a piece if gas shoots up to $100.00 a gallon.

 

 

I don't think I've EVER owned 60 copies of X-Men #1, but all my original copies are 9.8s. That means, if I pay the $20 to get them slabbed, they will be worth an average of $40. Take out eBay fees, and I'm looking at a sweet $15 profit for books I spent $1.35 each for.

 

And if I pay the $10 to get Jim Lee to SIGN them....I've just made about another $80.

 

THAT is how you play the game, my friends.

 

My point, going back to (A), is that there are circumstances...lots of them...that have made these books TERRIBLE investments over the last 10 years. Absolutely AWFUL. HIDEOUS.

 

The guy who bought that Green Lantern #76 in CGC 9.6 for $30,500...an "investment quality book" if there ever was one...has seen 75%+ of his investment evaporate into thin air...likely to never be seen again, even if he held the book for 100 years, adjusted for inflation.

 

And this was repeated all OVER the "investment quality" Silver and Bronze markets, and even affected the Gold market (though not nearly to that degree.)

 

The fact is, if you invested in "investment quality books" from 2004-2008, you've lost, big time, and you will probably never, ever recover from it.

 

The seller of that GL 76 would beg to differ with you.

 

-J.

 

The seller of that GL 76 didn't pay $30,000+ for it.

[The-Collector]

Sir is Teenage Dope Slaves an actual book or is that a blatant attempt to purchase a 17 year old heroin addict? I imagine the methadone bill would offset any future appreciation.

 

it is a book. Its proper title is "Harvey Comics Library No# 1" but is referred to colloquially as "Teenage Dope Slaves" and most would know it by this name.

[The-Collector]

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.

 

These books are all what I would classify as speculation. What about AV 55, ToS 50, BA 12, ASM 6, ASM 9 and all those Joker's daughter books etc which have all taken price hits since the movie hype or whatever other irrational exuberance caused their rise.

 

No one here is saying that you can't make money off comic books rising in price. They are disputing whether it is sound investment advice to put ones money in comic books.

[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.

 

 

Sir, someone parlayed a $.15 GL 76 into $30k and you are attempting to use that as the foundation of an argument for comics being a BAD investment??

 

Your argument rests on multiple assumptions.

 

First, you don't know how much the owner paid. 15 cents, 5 cents, $20, $1,000, $10,000...we don't know.

 

Second, we don't know WHEN the owner obtained it. If the owner obtained it in 1970, when it was brand new, they would have had no clue whether it, or #75, or #72, or #67 would someday be "worth something."

 

If, on the other hand, the owner obtained it after it had gained market traction as a back issue, they paid far more than 15 cents for it.

 

Third, no one "parlayed" anything into anything; if the original owner had purchased it in 1970, it would have been the sheerest of luck that it was preserved until 2009 in what-would-become a CGC 9.6. If the owner bought it as a back issue, and HAPPENED to carefully preserve it in a state that would become a CGC 9.6, that, too, was sheer happenstance.

 

Fourth, and really most important, you've completely ignored what I said: the BUYER paid $30,000 for it, only to see 75% of that value evaporate into thin air.

 

Was the book "investment quality" before it was slabbed? It certainly wasn't worth $30,000 to ANYONE until it was slabbed. Did the seller have a great deal of luck in timing the market? You bet they did!

 

See, the point you guys are missing about "investing" is that it has to be REPEATABLE.

 

I can go buy 1, 10, 1,000, or 1,000,000 shares of most anything I want, right now, of any company that has those shares available for public sale.

 

But for the seller of the GL #76 9.6 for $30K, it was lightning in a bottle: right place, right time, right book, right grade....NEVER TO BE REPEATED AGAIN.

 

Once does NOT an investment strategy make.

[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.

 

These books are all what I would classify as speculation. What about AV 55, ToS 50, BA 12, ASM 6, ASM 9 and all those Joker's daughter books etc which have all taken price hits since the movie hype or whatever other irrational exuberance caused their rise.

 

No one here is saying that you can't make money off comic books rising in price. They are disputing whether it is sound investment advice to put ones money in comic books.

 

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.

[Jaydogrules]

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.

 

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.

 

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