2015 May 28-30 Comics Signature Auction

[zhamlau]

Like everyone else, Of course I love disconnected fantasy land hepsters. Supposedly they drive our economy and seem to be the only people advertising firms market to. But living in a hepster town I can tell you that while they are very vocal about their own importance, there really aren't that many of them.

 

You see all these advertising for "tiny house" this or "4 ingredients or less" but in reality the number of people who this applies to is a very very small base who aren't very along in life and who haven't been forced to evolve yet.

 

No idea what will happy to collectables down the road with these people, but most 20 somethings I've seen (and being in the largest college town in the US and working for a firm that hires thousands every year, I've seen a lot) don't fit into this mold. Some do, sure. But even to other people their age these "artisanal beer" goofballs don't speak for their generation. So if you are afraid that the entire society is changing and it will mean that the entire notion of collecting and values will plummet...It might but if it does it wont be because these marketing firm darlings had any say in it.

 

They spend more money on themselves and their interests then any generation before them. They all seem to "love" graphic novels and are willing to slum it to see the newest superhero movie. They aint going anywhere, neither is the hobby of collecting comics and related material.

[Lantern]

...

The article you linked mentioned them eschewing possessions and houses in the suburbs to live simply in urban areas. They are also in their 20s and that's a very '20s' attitude. The couple in the article that talks about living happily in their 700 sq ft apartment is going to long wistfully for that backyard and picket fence once she pops a kid or two out in her 30s. It's cute that they 'hate clutter' now but let's talk to them when they have a stroller/glider/change table/baby toys/diaper genie/walker/whatever else taking up literally half of their apartment.

 

 

[delekkerste]

I agree but I also think the flip side is true. People are people, and while upbringing and generational experiences have some effect at the same time people in 1965 arent THAT different than people in 2015. The article you linked mentioned them eschewing possessions and houses in the suburbs to live simply in urban areas. They are also in their 20s and that's a very '20s' attitude. The couple in the article that talks about living happily in their 700 sq ft apartment is going to long wistfully for that backyard and picket fence once she pops a kid or two out in her 30s. It's cute that they 'hate clutter' now but let's talk to them when they have a stroller/glider/change table/baby toys/diaper genie/walker/whatever else taking up literally half of their apartment.

 

Of course you and Zhamlau are right to an extent, but no one is saying that these types of changes in attitudes are an all-or-none proposition and that no one will have an interest in collecting things instead of spending their time on social media, drinking Budweiser instead of microbrews, eating fast food instead of shopping at Whole Foods, reading the daily printed newspaper vs. getting their news online, subscribing to cable vs. cutting the cord and subscribing to Netflix or Hulu, buying a car vs. using Uber or Zipcar (and a Tesla instead of a gas-powered car at that), etc. etc. etc. But, enough people are making these changes that brands that have been growing for a half century or a century (e.g., Coke, McDonald's) are no longer growing like they used to. Home ownership rates are sinking to their lowest levels in years. Newspapers of course have been in the dumps for years as well. Green and organic products' growth rates continue to climb. You're seeing the changes all around us across all industries and segments of society. I can't agree at all that the generational experience isn't much different now in 2015 than in 1965 - I think that's projecting our own experience, which lies somewhere in the middle, upon the two ends, and I think that could not be more wrong.

 

Enough people are, whether by choice, economic reality and/or social convention, growing up in a much different way than all previous generations. You have to think about what happens at the margin when the next generational change-over occurs. The question is NOT whether there will interest or no interest in comics and OA at that time. OF COURSE THERE WILL STILL BE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN COMICS IN 20-30 YEARS!! The question, though, is whether the next generation will have the aggregate numbers, interest and financial resources to be able to clear the market at prices the previous generation believes will prevail. It does no good to us Gen Xers if there aren't enough Millennials entering the hobby to offset each Gen Xer and Baby Boomer that eventually leaves the hobby. It also does no good if the Millennials have the interest but not the financial wherewithal to clear the market at the exorbitant levels people expect in 25 years (remember, even a modest 6% rate of appreciation will cause prices to more than quadruple in that time). I see virtually no chance of this supply/demand equation balancing at the levels most think will prevail. And, neither do a number of other veteran collectors, both those who have gone on the record here and on Comicart-L, as well as those I've spoken to privately.

[Bronty]

...

The article you linked mentioned them eschewing possessions and houses in the suburbs to live simply in urban areas. They are also in their 20s and that's a very '20s' attitude. The couple in the article that talks about living happily in their 700 sq ft apartment is going to long wistfully for that backyard and picket fence once she pops a kid or two out in her 30s. It's cute that they 'hate clutter' now but let's talk to them when they have a stroller/glider/change table/baby toys/diaper genie/walker/whatever else taking up literally half of their apartment.

 

 

thx for that, that was funny

[Bronty]

I agree but I also think the flip side is true. People are people, and while upbringing and generational experiences have some effect at the same time people in 1965 arent THAT different than people in 2015. The article you linked mentioned them eschewing possessions and houses in the suburbs to live simply in urban areas. They are also in their 20s and that's a very '20s' attitude. The couple in the article that talks about living happily in their 700 sq ft apartment is going to long wistfully for that backyard and picket fence once she pops a kid or two out in her 30s. It's cute that they 'hate clutter' now but let's talk to them when they have a stroller/glider/change table/baby toys/diaper genie/walker/whatever else taking up literally half of their apartment.

 

Of course you and Zhamlau are right to an extent, but no one is saying that these types of changes in attitudes are an all-or-none proposition and that no one will have an interest in collecting things instead of spending their time on social media, drinking Budweiser instead of microbrews, eating fast food instead of shopping at Whole Foods, reading the daily printed newspaper vs. getting their news online, subscribing to cable vs. cutting the cord and subscribing to Netflix or Hulu, buying a car vs. using Uber or Zipcar (and a Tesla instead of a gas-powered car at that), etc. etc. etc. But, enough people are making these changes that brands that have been growing for a half century or a century (e.g., Coke, McDonald's) are no longer growing like they used to. Home ownership rates are sinking to their lowest levels in years. Newspapers of course have been in the dumps for years as well. Green and organic products' growth rates continue to climb. You're seeing the changes all around us across all industries and segments of society. I can't agree at all that the generational experience isn't much different now in 2015 than in 1965 - I think that's projecting our own experience, which lies somewhere in the middle, upon the two ends, and I think that could not be more wrong.

 

Enough people are, whether by choice, economic reality and/or social convention, growing up in a much different way than all previous generations. You have to think about what happens at the margin when the next generational change-over occurs. The question is NOT whether there will interest or no interest in comics and OA at that time. OF COURSE THERE WILL STILL BE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN COMICS IN 20-30 YEARS!! The question, though, is whether the next generation will have the aggregate numbers, interest and financial resources to be able to clear the market at prices the previous generation believes will prevail. It does no good to us Gen Xers if there aren't enough Millennials entering the hobby to offset each Gen Xer and Baby Boomer that eventually leaves the hobby. It also does no good if the Millennials have the interest but not the financial wherewithal to clear the market at the exorbitant levels people expect in 25 years (remember, even a modest 6% rate of appreciation will cause prices to more than quadruple in that time). I see virtually no chance of this supply/demand equation balancing at the levels most think will prevail. And, neither do a number of other veteran collectors, both those who have gone on the record here and on Comicart-L, as well as those I've spoken to privately.

 

Why the shoutey caps? I read it the first time? The entire thrust of my message was that I don't disagree with your points necessarily but to remember that there are two factors at work: Generational change but also generational AGE. Young generations have "young" interests (like tiny apartments in the city!)

 

Never said generational experiences in 1965 and 2015 were the same. I said that people aren't THAT different. Of course their experiences are different and sure that has an effect but at the end of the day people are people and the millenials will make at least some of the choices their parents did as they age. That may or may not include purchasing OA. I don't really see any reason why they would purchase OA, but I also think they are going to be pursuing whatever material interests they do have in force when the time comes

 

In other words the 'readership is down' argument makes sense to me but the 'millenials prefer experiences to possessions' argument is a load of poop that mostly confuses stage in life with generational preferences. (Mostly - not necessarily entirely).

 

If anything millenials are growing up in a more consumer driven time than any other generation. Look at all the YouTube and Instagram channels where these kids show off their possesions. Not only do they like having things they like bragging about it on the internet

[jaybuck43]

Not only that Gene but also, you need to make sure that it is a more or less seamless transition in terms of economies. Sure if we replace a boomer with a 20 something hipster millennial that's great in keeping the numbers even, but statistically speaking the boomers have a steadier income stream. It's kind of hard to replace a doctor or lawyer's income with a starbucks barista income.

 

The average income for someone aged 65-69 is around $37,500, the median income for a millennial is $35,300, a $2,000 difference. On top of that, factor in the fact that most Boomers have paid off their loans, bought and owned their homes, their children are grown and thus boomers have more disposable cash. Most Millennial are still paying off student loans and either paying rent or paying a mortgage and also maybe starting a family (and everyone here knows how expensive that can be) They have less disposable income to spend on these things.

 

Now also factor in wealth distribution. I consider millennials to be anyone born from 1980-2000. That would mean ages 15-35. Lets cut out the under 18 crowd because they probably don't have income anyway, so that gets us to ages 18-35. Census data puts that age cohort at about 75 million americans. Great. However only 1% of that cohort make over $100,000. That's 750,000 people. The top 10% of millennials only make about $60,000 (that's 7.5 million people) everyone else makes much less than that. That means there is a very small pool of people who can afford to replace those boomers. For comparisons sake, the top 10% of baby boomers are making $90,000 a year.

 

Given the thin spread of excess capital amongst such a small group I think it would be very hard to maintain these growth rates for very long as the boomers age out.

[delekkerste]

Why the shoutey caps? I read it the first time? The entire thrust of my message was that I don't disagree with your points necessarily but to remember that there are two factors at work: Generational change but also generational AGE. Young generations have "young" interests (like tiny apartments in the city!)

 

Never said generational experiences in 1965 and 2015 were the same. I said that people aren't that different. Of course their experiences are different and sure that has an effect but at the end of the day people are people and the millenials will make at least some of the choices their parents did as they age. That may or may not include purchasing OA.

 

It wasn't just directed at you. I also think you're hugely underestimating how much of this is normal young experience and how much is creative destruction and a paradigm shift. I have no doubt that many of these Millennials will covet cars and houses and material comforts as they age. But, it's clear that they don't want the same things as previous generations. Or, at least enough of them at the margin will induce tremendous societal change, much of which we are already seeing. It's not enough to say that, "Millennials will make at least some of the choices their parents did as they age". Of course they will. The question is what happens to the aggregate numbers at the margin. Look closely there and the conclusions are inescapable.

 

 

Not only that Gene but also, you need to make sure that it is a more or less seamless transition in terms of economies. Sure if we replace a boomer with a 20 something hipster millennial that's great in keeping the numbers even, but statistically speaking the boomers have a steadier income stream. It's kind of hard to replace a doctor or lawyer's income with a starbucks barista income.

 

Given the thin spread of excess capital amongst such a small group I think it would be very hard to maintain these growth rates for very long as the boomers age out.

 

Absolutely, which is why I have stressed that it's not just the "numbers", but the "aggregate interest and resources" that will ultimately matter. The Millennials as a group won't have the income, employment prospects, dirt cheap asset prices (and outsized asset returns), etc. that the Baby Boomers and Gen X enjoyed. They won't have had the benefit of buying OA at pennies on the dollar to use as currency.

 

The further out in time you go, the more market values become a question of demographics and mathematics and less a question of psychology.

[Bronty]

I'll tell you the real inescapable conclusion: these discussions always end up at the same place

 

Anyways I don't disagree that this generation will probably have less spare cash for these pursuits (and that's putting aside their level of interest). From a North American POV the rest of the world is catching up so there's no reason to think millennials shouldn't have a harder go of things financially

[delekkerste]

I'll tell you the real inescapable conclusion: these discussions always end up at the same place

 

Indeed. I say we carry on with focusing on the auction.

[Bronty]

Kirby ST 108 splash predictions?

[jaybuck43]

I'll tell you the real inescapable conclusion: these discussions always end up at the same place

 

Indeed. I say we carry on with focusing on the auction.

 

Gladly but I haven't gotten my catalogue yet

[vodou]

However, for the first time ever -at Heritage or anywhere else public- one of my (little "g") grails has come up. It's from the short list I mentally created nearly twenty years ago and did not ever expect to see anything from. And haven't. Which is good because I used to always be broke and wouldn't have been able to make a move. These days I'm not. If there's an extreme outlier lot this sale, know it's me that bid to rafters.

 

And that's all I write re: this lot until pre-sale

 

Booo! C'mon now, you can't just drop some sh*t like this and not expect to get poked!

 

Non-Superhero or Super-hero? Ima guess Non.

I appreciate the post and curiosity...but being committed to winning at whatever cost and wanting to attract punishment bids...two very different things. Mum's the word

[drdroom]

I also have a piece in this one that I am Highly committed to. It's probably not the same one.

 

[Kevn]

I wonder if the people who loudly obsess about the supposed coming crash in OA values ever consider that they're helping create a negative, money/investment-focused culture that might help bring about exactly what they seem to most fear.

 

I found this forum after not paying attention to the world of comic book OA for a while, and I was excited when I found this forum and CAF. I expected to get a chance to wax poetic over some of my favorite art and artists, to learn from people who had spent time studying certain artists, and learn about what new artists are doing interesting, worthwhile stuff. And frankly, there's precious little of that kind of discussion here. I wonder what a young person with a serious affection for comics and art, who is considering starting to collect OA, would think of this forum. I think it would be a big turn off.

 

This thread was started to talk about a specific auction. Has there been any discussion about the actual art in that auction?

 

You made this post complaining about OA financial discussions and come across smarmy as if you think you're better than others here. Someone suggests you create a discussion thread focusing on the art. You create that thread and lead off with "In the interest of stimulating discussion of the art that we obsess over, rather than obsessing over the economics of collecting"- yet you're still on this thread, talking about economics (and coming across pissy, to boot). May be time to get off the soapbox.

 

Bill, not sure what I did to annoy you. I haven't engaged in an ad hominem attacks, and I'd just as soon not have them directed at me. I have the feeling you're reading into my comments an attitude that isn't there. If you read what I wrote, it wasn't to complain about financial discussions. I love financial discussions. I expressed my opinion about what I saw as some misinformation, and also my reaction to the recurring theme here that I can best summarize as a self-reinforcing negativity about the future of OA collecting.

 

If the discussion was bullish about the financial health and outlook of the OA market, would that make you feel better? If so, go back a few years here on the Boards when there were daily pollyanna shill posts by a couple of members.

 

What do you see in this thread as misinformation?

 

Definitely not looking for any Pollyanna stuff. Realized that my problem here is my own, and I'll take a step back. Only discussions of the art for me from now on.

[trimpehulk]

Some very interesting points regarding future participants and dollars in this hobby. I have been collecting comic art for 15 years. Some of my observations regarding this hobby and a few questions. I will start with some questions and anyone who can help , PLEASE chime in. All the Modern art from say 1995-2015 cover and page wise hot artist or no , Just where is it? I don't see much for sale or even in The CAF galleries for viewing. So WE must have many collectors that are unaccounted for ( or Readers) ? Even with Global Funding ripples from 2000, 2002, 2006-2009 and some current issues with the Euro ( a very North American view), Just where is the other 65% of cover art from the Silver 1965 and Bronze Age? Just my guess. The market for new pieces at least my observation from 2003-2007 was very small and even with the global crisis only a small amount appeared as new for a few years 2008-2009. Most of the cover art over the last 15 years has been recycled or Foot-balled as they say. I also have noticed many of the covers have issues regarding condition , stats, white-out, vellum and many other condition problems. As Far as Mankuta and Gene and Bronty and any other I left out. I do agree with some of the bubble issues of the future. Readership is way down.The Internet age and shifting childhood developments have contributed to the decline in readership. One or two areas of growth regarding just the superhero characters and elements of fantasy growing Cons? are still coming from cartoons and video game players, no comic or comic art reading required. Regarding bubbles and money ( barring a new Great Depression ) I would be surprised to see most of the art shift 2-3 in the next 20-30 years. Most will hold the art just based on the strong attachment issues regardless of $$. Some will sell for the reasons Mankuta mentions.

[vodou]

...( barring a new Great Depression )...

Sorry to all that disagree, but um, we're already in it. Last one ran a good twenty years, not every day or even year was pure horror and misery...just sayin'. Back to lurking.

[*paull*]

...( barring a new Great Depression )...

Sorry to all that disagree, but um, we're already in it. Last one ran a good twenty years, not every day or even year was pure horror and misery...just sayin'. Back to lurking.

 

Sorry, but um, just sayin'

 

 

[tth2]

The Superman #12 cover has a reserve of $110K ($131K w/ reserve).

 

Will it sell?

[drdroom]

The Superman #12 cover has a reserve of $110K ($131K w/ reserve).

 

Will it sell?

 

Beats me, but I'm looking at it and wondering just how much restoration are we talking about?

[tth2]

If some of the recent big prices in vintage comic strip art has been driven by European buyers, as has been rumored, it will be interesting to see if the Euro's recent weakness will dampen their aggressiveness this time.