Anyone want to guess what this will sell for?

[batman_fan]

.... but transparency is not a term I would use for the OA market.... there are a LOT of back room and penthouse deals going on behind the scenes.

 

Which, to me, means the small number of big-spenders in a particular OA niche could collude with one another quite easily, as in:

"Winston, old chap, if you agree not to bid on that delectable ASM 300 cover that's had my salivary glands in a tizzy, I'll refrain from bidding on the ASM 252 cover that for which you've been Jonesing."

"Why Cedric, my good man, I believe we have ourselves an understanding. Now, may I partake of your Grey Poupon?"

 

I think people would their pants if they knew some of the peer to peer $ being paid for pieces.

[rob_react]

but one would need to proceed with caution. I usually agree with most of what Rob says.... but transparency is not a term I would use for the OA market.

 

I said it was opaque

[jimjum12]

but one would need to proceed with caution. I usually agree with most of what Rob says.... but transparency is not a term I would use for the OA market.

 

I said it was opaque

 

My apologies Rob..... I must have mixed up posts in my aging mind. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[rob_react]

I think if you stay with solid pieces like Kirby pages you're pretty safe

Betting that a key piece like hopgoblin will increase might be riskier but if I had to place a bet in Vegas I would bet that it would increase in value substantially in 8 years. I don't know much about fine art prices but I do know that Van Gogh pieces have consistently climbed in value without declining in value. Maybe something like a Keith Haring would fluctuate more

 

Actually, nothing ever goes up in a straight line. Fine art is volatile as heck. There was a crash in the art market in 2008 where even the bluest of blue chip pieces lost value. The same thing happened 1990s after the Japanese money spigot was turned off. The art market took a long time to truly recover from the excesses of the 1980s.

[Dr Chaos]

I'm not that familiar with OA, but I think this is a no-brainer. I'm going to bid aggressively on this one, but just curious what someone knowledgeable might predict realistically what the final bid might be??

 

I'm looking at this as a 5-10 year investment for retirement

 

Amazing Spiderman #238 Cover in the CL Winter Featured Auction

 

 

Are the Tatooz included?

[Hamlet]

I think that this is a huge piece to a certain group of collectors.

 

I started collecting ASM in the 80s, and to me this would probably be an absolute grail cover if I collected OA. Like you said, the Hobgoblin was huge in the 80s, and this cover is iconic in a way that few Spidey covers from the time were.

 

I'd rather have this cover than any other Spidey cover from the time that comes to mind, including 300. Issue 300 is a bigger key because of what is in the issue itself, but the cover itself is not very interesting, IMO. About the only cover I'd want more from a personal standpoint is ASM 39.

 

That said, I have no idea what it will go for, and would never consider it an investment.

 

 

While I think that is a wild assumption to make (sometimes artwork goes down 50% in 8 years), it would not surprise me if this one did double...although i have a hard time seeking that if it goes for over $100K.

 

hobgoblin was a big spidey villian in the 80s, but not so much after that. he's no green goblin, punisher, etc. frankly, when they stick him in a movie folks will be really confused as to what the difference is between him and green goblin.

[rob_react]

Well-any other examples besides a couple sally forth pages to solidify the claim that OA can and does often decrease in value?

 

Again, it's worth reading the thread since it's not just the Sally Forth pages.

 

The ASM 300 cover in that same auction was a loss for the consignor.

 

Adams Green Lantern page that was auctioned in the recent Heritage auction. Colan silver age DD splash 8 years later lost 10% the purchase price.

 

Thinking about it, the "worst" examples can probably be found among the Barks paintings that sold for big money in the 1990s only to see significant declines when they resold in the 2000s and 2010s. I'm not an expert in that area but I know t least a few were purchased at very aggressive retail prices in the 1990s and lost money (five figures) when they hit the auction block in recent years. I'd have to research it, but my fuzzy memory tells me there are pieces that lost $50,000+

 

Unfortunately, we now have a much clearer (and fresh) example in the form of the Amazing Spider-Man #317 cover that sold in this same ComicLink auction. It sold for $143,400.00 at Heritage a couple of years ago and sold in this auction for $81,000 (minus 10% CL commission.)

[gradejunky]

So, did this sell?

[JazzMan]

It sold for $100,000.

 

https://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fauctions%2Fpreview%2Easp%3Fcode%3D2015feb%26itemtype%3D1%23Item_1039808&id=1039808