• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Collectibles are worthless...

Started by Amin80,

305 posts in this topic

Garf

Garf

Posted
Posted
I don't know if collectibles are a U.S. thing, but I'm starting to think that the crazy amounts of money spent, were spent on something that is so illiquid unless you're living in the U.S. so anyway, I live in the UAE (Dubai) and a few months back I wanted to sell some of my valuable comics on a popular classified site, but there was no interest what so ever. People were even messaging me and telling me I was crazy to expect to get that much for a comic book. We are talking comics like Spiderman #50, 122, Hulk 181 etc.

 

I see the same thing happening with Legos now, and it seems to have become a fad right after the Lego movie, people hoarding sets hoping they'll sell them for huge profits. But at the end of the day, as much as you might love the blocks, no one in their right mind is going to pay $5,000 for a toy. Collectibles just present an illusion of gold, but they are not worth anything.

 

So essentially what you're saying is that because you couldn't sell comics locally, via classified ads, those comics are worthless?

 

Further, because no one will pay $5000 for some Lego set, you conclude that no one ever has or ever will pay $5000 for a toy?

 

Welcome to comics general. Your logic, while terrible, is still above average for this place.

 

Ok I'll give you an example, let's pretend you don't care about superheroes, comics etc. now I've seen these hot toys which are selling for like $350, for what? it is a piece of plastic. Would you think that is normal to spend that kind of money on such a thing. I'm honestly not trying to start any flame war, I'm just interested to have an intelligent conversation about this. Are collectibles actually worth anything, or are people really deluding themselves? I know no one would ever think you're crazy if you put that kind of money and more buying gold.

 

Collectibles aren't commodities, but if you want a collectible that costs $500, and other people want it and are willing to pay $500, then it's worth $500 at that point in time. You can't use it as fuel, shelter or food, but that's true of non-collectible items as well, including gold and various financial instruments like stocks and bonds. Even currency itself. If a market exists where someone is willing to trade $500 for a collectible, and you can in-turn take that $500 and convert it to food, or paying rent, or gas in your car, then that collectible has value. In the same way, gold only has value so long as a market for it exists, and currency only has value as long as it can be exchanged for goods and services.

 

That said, collectibles aren't commodities that you can buy or sell on an exchange, so you have to seek out buyers who are willing to purchase what you have. Not being able to find buyers locally doesn't render that collectible worthless; it just means it's not as liquid as something like gold.

 

Yeah but if you have gold it's a highly liquid asset. You can go to any jewellery shop and sell it. Comics are not, you will be lucky to find someone willing to pay the asking price.

 

 

If you want to live in a world where comics are as liquid as gold, I think we all would have a lot more to worry about at that point. If you got into comics thinking that they'd be ultra liquid or just like printing money that you can sell w/free advertising, I don't think anyone here can help you. The best and hardest working dealers in AMERICA with the best connections and moving the most volume don't live in the Hollywood Hills or on Fifth Ave in NYC. Some do alright, but its not an easy life.

 

1413-butthurt.png

 

It's like you have come to this realisation after making a lot of high dollar purchases. Are you knocking an entire market (i.e. collectibles) that has been around for longer than you and will continue to be around long after you have gone and expecting to be taken seriously? Sooner or later anything collectible will have had its time and be on the decline. Go and tell the people who bought into Beanie Babies or the latest hot modern comic for $300 that never got past issue #10 (or less). There will be plenty who get burned... and also quite a few that don't, why do you think that is and what are they doing differently? They are probably pretty good at predicting and / or reacting to the market in question... and if they aren't already then they would probably be pretty good at doing the same elsewhere in other markets if they applied themselves to it.

 

On the other hand purist collectors are simply going to consider the money spent and they will continue to get enjoyment out of what they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted
Have you watched the show Comic Book Men? Walt tries to rip off any guy that comes in with something "valuable" a jewellery store can't do that because the price of gold is already set.

 

That's incorrect and not how jewelry stores work. Depending on the "type" of your gold (i.e., rings, nuggets, etc) the price fluxuates and you are giving a 'take it or leave it' price. You are free to shop around because stores vary in what they pay for gold. Just because gold is trading at $1200 per ounce, doesn't mean I'm getting $1,200 an ounce for my gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
So when the hits the fan, that gold you just bought will suddenly become edible?

 

No, but it is the best method for obtaining bread from someone who makes it.

 

There is nothing so universal as gold. It is the world's oldest, and best, currency.

 

Actually this is a bit wrong. While gold may be viewed objectively as best (and that would be your opinion, I myself would prefer platinum as it is far more rare) gold is no where near the oldest currency. Both Copper and Silver were used thousands of years before gold as a form of currency. Mesopotamia shekels were made out of silver and copper. The first gold coins started to emerge around 1000-800 BC, about 2000 years later. And of course bartered goods like Cattle and Barley or Grain FAR outpace that, but if we are talking pure currency then both silver and copper (as well as bronze to an extent) outpace gold as oldest.

 

Sorry, but this isn't true. And I'm not speaking of coins. Coinage is a relatively new development in human history, all things considered.

 

While there is no way to conclusively state which metals were used "first", there is plenty of evidence to indicate that gold, silver, copper, and tin were all used as mediums of exchange well into the 4th millennium BC, and earlier.

 

"Shekels" were not coins; they were weights.

 

So, no, copper and silver were not used "thousands of years before gold"...that's simply not true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
What makes gold any different? It has less utility than comics or legos so you could easily argue that collectibles should be worth more. Sure, it is more liquid, but as a store of value, historically, it's not worth its weight in well, ...

 

Gold has less utility than comics or legos...?

 

Are you sure about that?

 

hm

 

(that's a fairly rhetorical question...gold has much, much more utility than comics or legos.)

 

Aside from that, it is its universality that makes it different. Gold is recognized the world over as a store of value, and is the most accepted, and acceptable, medium of exchange that exists.

 

"But what if I need bread, and have bananas to trade for it?"

 

Fine and dandy...until everyone you want to trade with already has bananas, and has no need of yours. Gold solves that problem quite efficiently.

 

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other reasons, but that would make this a wall of text, and that frightens people.

 

John Locke +1s this post.

 

I <3 John Locke.

 

250px-LockeLost.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted
image.png

 

I can tell you've learned some valuable lessons in your interactions with me over the years.

 

 

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted
What makes gold any different? It has less utility than comics or legos so you could easily argue that collectibles should be worth more. Sure, it is more liquid, but as a store of value, historically, it's not worth its weight in well, ...

 

Gold has less utility than comics or legos...?

 

Are you sure about that?

 

hm

 

(that's a fairly rhetorical question...gold has much, much more utility than comics or legos.)

 

Aside from that, it is its universality that makes it different. Gold is recognized the world over as a store of value, and is the most accepted, and acceptable, medium of exchange that exists.

 

"But what if I need bread, and have bananas to trade for it?"

 

Fine and dandy...until everyone you want to trade with already has bananas, and has no need of yours. Gold solves that problem quite efficiently.

 

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other reasons, but that would make this a wall of text, and that frightens people.

 

John Locke +1s this post.

 

I <3 John Locke.

 

250px-LockeLost.jpg

 

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
What makes gold any different? It has less utility than comics or legos so you could easily argue that collectibles should be worth more. Sure, it is more liquid, but as a store of value, historically, it's not worth its weight in well, ...

 

Gold has less utility than comics or legos...?

 

Are you sure about that?

 

hm

 

(that's a fairly rhetorical question...gold has much, much more utility than comics or legos.)

 

Aside from that, it is its universality that makes it different. Gold is recognized the world over as a store of value, and is the most accepted, and acceptable, medium of exchange that exists.

 

"But what if I need bread, and have bananas to trade for it?"

 

Fine and dandy...until everyone you want to trade with already has bananas, and has no need of yours. Gold solves that problem quite efficiently.

 

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other reasons, but that would make this a wall of text, and that frightens people.

 

John Locke +1s this post.

 

I <3 John Locke.

 

250px-LockeLost.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

Come on, you've known me a long time....don't assign me the same imbecilic ignorance as the rest of CG.

 

;)

 

Besides, Locke had nothing on this guy:

 

Adam_Smith_The_Muir_portrait.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
image.png

 

I can tell you've learned some valuable lessons in your interactions with me over the years.

 

 

image.jpg

 

I think you're mixing me up with Park now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted
What makes gold any different? It has less utility than comics or legos so you could easily argue that collectibles should be worth more. Sure, it is more liquid, but as a store of value, historically, it's not worth its weight in well, ...

 

Gold has less utility than comics or legos...?

 

Are you sure about that?

 

hm

 

(that's a fairly rhetorical question...gold has much, much more utility than comics or legos.)

 

Aside from that, it is its universality that makes it different. Gold is recognized the world over as a store of value, and is the most accepted, and acceptable, medium of exchange that exists.

 

"But what if I need bread, and have bananas to trade for it?"

 

Fine and dandy...until everyone you want to trade with already has bananas, and has no need of yours. Gold solves that problem quite efficiently.

 

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other reasons, but that would make this a wall of text, and that frightens people.

 

John Locke +1s this post.

 

I <3 John Locke.

 

250px-LockeLost.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

Come on, you've known me a long time....don't assign me the same imbecilic ignorance as the rest of CG.

 

;)

 

Besides, Locke had nothing on this guy:

 

Adam_Smith_The_Muir_portrait.jpg

 

 

Locke is giving you the invisible finger. COI is giving you a +1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing