Are key comics good investments?

[Aman619]

Also, when your Rocket Raccoons and Guardians of Galaxy go up 20x overnight, that IS a signal to sell. Take the money and let others enjoy the books du jour. AF 15s overall rise, while meteoric in scope has taken many decades to get to Action 1 territory.

[delekkerste]

Yeah but... Your example is a tad extreme. AF15s in 5.5 might go up 5K overnight, or quickly, and that would just leave us in the status quo... The steady price escalation unabated, awaiting the generational cliff dive. It's not fair to posit a 5.5 going to 250k at ANY point !

 

Yeah, but my point was that there are some who will continue to linearly extrapolate the recent past forward indefinitely and believe that AF #15s are bulletproof no matter what happens. This example should show you that this is folly, and that you should actually be looking at the fundamentals instead of assuming that trends will last forever or pointing out that people were wrong 5 or 10 years ago. Neither of those tells anyone anything about what is likely to happen in the future.

 

And it's not like the comic book true believers have a monopoly on linear extrapolation either. I recently argued in this recent stock market thread that some Boardies' expectations for stock market returns from these levels are overly optimistic. It's not 2009 anymore, the market's valuation is a lot higher now, and stocks have reverted strongly back to the mean after being annihilated by forced liquidation in 2008-09. I don't think it's realistic to expect double-digit returns from these levels over the long-term. Which is not to say that one shouldn't invest in stocks - just the opposite, in fact. It means that people should be saving/investing regularly more and taking advantage of pullbacks because future returns are likely to be less than historical returns from this starting point (it would also help to hone one's skills as a value-oriented stockpicker, IMO).

 

Here's a post I pulled from that thread to highlight how one should expect lower growth rates as assets get bigger in size, more mature and more expensive:

 

Here's another analogy that many will probably be able to relate to. The original cover art to Amazing Spider-Man #328 was worth about a grand in 1990. It sold for $657K in 2012 - about a 34% compounded annual return. Similarly, the Dark Knight #2 cover went from $2K to $478K in about 25 years - more than a 24% compounded annual return.

 

Intuitively, we all know that it's much easier to see outsized gains when prices are starting from a low base. Just because that ASM #328 appreciated at 34.3% a year since it was originally sold, does it make sense to think that it will still do so even though it has appreciated 657-fold already? Of course not. Heck, by that logic, the cover should be worth almost $1.6 million now, since another 3 years have passed! When the numbers get larger, the potential growth rate slows. [incidentally, I think 99.99% of OA collectors agree that the cover is worth less than $657K now].

 

Someone asked about China. The insane stock market speculation over there is a separate matter entirely, but, yes, here is a case of a relatively under-developed country with a very long growth path ahead of it, which is why it's no surprise that Chinese growth had been clocking in in the high single-digits and even low double-digits before the Great Recession. That said, as China has grown, you've seen the rate of growth decelerate - now the official number is about 7% at a time when the US is doing 2.4% - it gets harder to maintain growth rates the larger you get. We're simply at different stages of economic development, much as the comic art market above was in 1990 vs. 2015 [same for comic books].

 

Anyone who has ever invested in growth stocks knows that the growth rate eventually slows the larger you get. It's much harder to Apple to grow as a company doing $212 billion in sales vs. when it was doing $50 billion. It's still doing great, but we don't expect future growth rates to be like they were. We don't expect the Apple Watch to have the same impact on the bottom line as earlier product introductions did. The stock price is up almost 29% a year compounded over the past 15 years. Should we really expect that to continue over the next 15 years? Well, guess what - if it does, it's market capitalization will reach $33 TRILLION dollars - which will be more than the GDP of the entire US economy assuming the latter grows at a 2.5% rate over the next 15 years. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

 

Starting conditions matter more than just looking at long-term averages which encompass periods featuring characteristics which are no longer relevant. This is true whether you're looking at comic art, [comic books], individual companies or national economies.

[Mmehdy]

Why would demand for AF 15 continue to increase as rapidly as it has in the past? Where is the source of demand to drive prices substantially higher going to come from?

 

People asked this very same question 5-10 years ago. It went something like this:

 

Where is the demand going to come from with three movies already out? Where is the demand going to come from with an aging reader base and dwindling readership on monthly floppies? Where is the demand going to come from with price tags for this issue already in the five to six figure range? Where is the demand going to come from with younger collectors distracted by more and more digital content and limitless entertainment?

 

And yet here we are. I wish I'd picked up a dozen copies when this was discussed back then.

 

 

This thread probably should be a sticky, though we probably differ on the reason why.

 

+1

 

Makes one wonder how many years someone has to be wrong before they admit it.

 

Or, as someone else opined earlier....if you run around like Chicken Little telling everyone the sky is going to fall for long enough, if it should ever actually happen you can then run around trying to convince everyone how smart you were the whole time.

 

-J.

 

Damn that is a great analogy.

I've heard this doom and gloom song and dance for so long,it gets more painful every year someone brings it up.Funny how it's always the same people on here predicting the end.

 

Yep. And the same people getting defensive about it.

 

Speak for yourself. I have for a very long time been bullish on the GA comic book market. My assumption was that the market would steadily increase in a sane fashion as comic art became more accepted in our society. What has got me off that boat is the IRRATIONAL prices that the newest "key" discovery as well as very overblown auction house prices of a bunch of comic books across the board, no just GA but SA etc.

 

This insanity is gonna cost us in the long run...it only takes one time to prove this theory is right. We have figured out the primary cause of price spike. You can take my advice on this coming from somebody who has lived thru comic book fandom...do not pay multiples of ANY market price...do not pay the world's highest price for a comic book( auction house price...pay a reasonable price only) and if you buy from a auction house..ADD 10%-19.5% plus shipping for the ability to resell the same book in the same market place and break EVEN.

 

The safest investment today, left...is comic book art...and the secret is out..with prices again going up....why?...YOU control the market on that piece...there is only one.

 

Do you have to be a "speculator" to collect key comic books...well that is a good question...I suppose the restored or low grade copies will cost you less, but the world record prices being paid bootstraps the lower material also.

 

This might not happen tomorrow, but for a true collector you have to prepare for the negative press and heartbreaking stories which are about to hit. The higher we go now...the bigger the fall...We must put a brake on these over market value prices paid by speculators to lessen the blow of the market correction which will occur in the future.

[COI]

Why would demand for AF 15 continue to increase as rapidly as it has in the past? Where is the source of demand to drive prices substantially higher going to come from?

 

People asked this very same question 5-10 years ago. It went something like this:

 

Where is the demand going to come from with three movies already out? Where is the demand going to come from with an aging reader base and dwindling readership on monthly floppies? Where is the demand going to come from with price tags for this issue already in the five to six figure range? Where is the demand going to come from with younger collectors distracted by more and more digital content and limitless entertainment?

 

And yet here we are. I wish I'd picked up a dozen copies when this was discussed back then.

 

 

This thread probably should be a sticky, though we probably differ on the reason why.

 

+1

 

Makes one wonder how many years someone has to be wrong before they admit it.

 

Or, as someone else opined earlier....if you run around like Chicken Little telling everyone the sky is going to fall for long enough, if it should ever actually happen you can then run around trying to convince everyone how smart you were the whole time.

 

-J.

 

Damn that is a great analogy.

I've heard this doom and gloom song and dance for so long,it gets more painful every year someone brings it up.Funny how it's always the same people on here predicting the end.

 

Yep. And the same people getting defensive about it.

 

Speak for yourself. I have for a very long time been bullish on the GA comic book market. My assumption was that the market would steadily increase in a sane fashion as comic art became more accepted in our society. What has got me off that boat is the IRRATIONAL prices that the newest "key" discovery as well as very overblown auction house prices of a bunch of comic books across the board, no just GA but SA etc.

 

 

You've misunderstood my post. I also think the run-up in prices in the last couple of years on key books is irrational.

[Mmehdy]

Then we agree...Now the question is what can WE do about it.

[thunsicker]

I think the answer is not much except waiting. I'm avoiding hyped books and just spending what I can afford on things I want.

[NewWorldOrder]

Then we agree...Now the question is what can WE do about it.

 

Nothing.

 

Make more money.

[COI]

Yeah but... Your example is a tad extreme. AF15s in 5.5 might go up 5K overnight, or quickly, and that would just leave us in the status quo... The steady price escalation unabated, awaiting the generational cliff dive. It's not fair to posit a 5.5 going to 250k at ANY point !

 

Yeah, but my point was that there are some who will continue to linearly extrapolate the recent past forward indefinitely and believe that AF #15s are bulletproof no matter what happens. This example should show you that this is folly, and that you should actually be looking at the fundamentals instead of assuming that trends will last forever or pointing out that people were wrong 5 or 10 years ago. Neither of those tells anyone anything about what is likely to happen in the future.

 

And it's not like the comic book true believers have a monopoly on linear extrapolation either. I recently argued in this recent stock market thread that some Boardies' expectations for stock market returns from these levels are overly optimistic. It's not 2009 anymore, the market's valuation is a lot higher now, and stocks have reverted strongly back to the mean after being annihilated by forced liquidation in 2008-09. I don't think it's realistic to expect double-digit returns from these levels over the long-term. Which is not to say that one shouldn't invest in stocks - just the opposite, in fact. It means that people should be saving regularly more and taking advantage of pullbacks because future returns are likely to be less than historical returns from this starting point (it would also help to hone one's skills as a value-oriented stockpicker, IMO).

 

Here's a post I pulled from that thread to highlight how one should expect lower growth rates as assets get bigger in size, more mature and more expensive:

 

Here's another analogy that many will probably be able to relate to. The original cover art to Amazing Spider-Man #328 was worth about a grand in 1990. It sold for $657K in 2012 - about a 34% compounded annual return. Similarly, the Dark Knight #2 cover went from $2K to $478K in about 25 years - more than a 24% compounded annual return.

 

Intuitively, we all know that it's much easier to see outsized gains when prices are starting from a low base. Just because that ASM #328 appreciated at 34.3% a year since it was originally sold, does it make sense to think that it will still do so even though it has appreciated 657-fold already? Of course not. Heck, by that logic, the cover should be worth almost $1.6 million now, since another 3 years have passed! When the numbers get larger, the potential growth rate slows. [incidentally, I think 99.99% of OA collectors agree that the cover is worth less than $657K now].

 

Someone asked about China. The insane stock market speculation over there is a separate matter entirely, but, yes, here is a case of a relatively under-developed country with a very long growth path ahead of it, which is why it's no surprise that Chinese growth had been clocking in in the high single-digits and even low double-digits before the Great Recession. That said, as China has grown, you've seen the rate of growth decelerate - now the official number is about 7% at a time when the US is doing 2.4% - it gets harder to maintain growth rates the larger you get. We're simply at different stages of economic development, much as the comic art market above was in 1990 vs. 2015 [same for comic books].

 

Anyone who has ever invested in growth stocks knows that the growth rate eventually slows the larger you get. It's much harder to Apple to grow as a company doing $212 billion in sales vs. when it was doing $50 billion. It's still doing great, but we don't expect future growth rates to be like they were. We don't expect the Apple Watch to have the same impact on the bottom line as earlier product introductions did. The stock price is up almost 29% a year compounded over the past 15 years. Should we really expect that to continue over the next 15 years? Well, guess what - if it does, it's market capitalization will reach $33 TRILLION dollars - which will be more than the GDP of the entire US economy assuming the latter grows at a 2.5% rate over the next 15 years. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

 

Starting conditions matter more than just looking at long-term averages which encompass periods featuring characteristics which are no longer relevant. This is true whether you're looking at comic art, [comic books], individual companies or national economies.

 

Great post.

 

The math doesn't lie, and it's ridiculous to dismiss it just because it doesn't provide an exact timeline of events. The "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" argument implies linear extrapolation (if you were wrong 5-10 years ago, you'll be wrong 5-10 years from now, and 5-10 years after that), and as you've thoroughly outlined here, that simply doesn't work.

[october]

Yeah but... Your example is a tad extreme. AF15s in 5.5 might go up 5K overnight, or quickly, and that would just leave us in the status quo... The steady price escalation unabated, awaiting the generational cliff dive. It's not fair to posit a 5.5 going to 250k at ANY point !

 

Yeah, but my point was that there are some who will continue to linearly extrapolate the recent past forward indefinitely and believe that AF #15s are bulletproof no matter what happens. This example should show you that this is folly, and that you should actually be looking at the fundamentals instead of assuming that trends will last forever or pointing out that people were wrong 5 or 10 years ago. Neither of those tells anyone anything about what is likely to happen in the future.

 

And it's not like the comic book true believers have a monopoly on linear extrapolation either. I recently argued in this recent stock market thread that some Boardies' expectations for stock market returns from these levels are overly optimistic. It's not 2009 anymore, the market's valuation is a lot higher now, and stocks have reverted strongly back to the mean after being annihilated by forced liquidation in 2008-09. I don't think it's realistic to expect double-digit returns from these levels over the long-term. Which is not to say that one shouldn't invest in stocks - just the opposite, in fact. It means that people should be saving regularly more and taking advantage of pullbacks because future returns are likely to be less than historical returns from this starting point (it would also help to hone one's skills as a value-oriented stockpicker, IMO).

 

Here's a post I pulled from that thread to highlight how one should expect lower growth rates as assets get bigger in size, more mature and more expensive:

 

Here's another analogy that many will probably be able to relate to. The original cover art to Amazing Spider-Man #328 was worth about a grand in 1990. It sold for $657K in 2012 - about a 34% compounded annual return. Similarly, the Dark Knight #2 cover went from $2K to $478K in about 25 years - more than a 24% compounded annual return.

 

Intuitively, we all know that it's much easier to see outsized gains when prices are starting from a low base. Just because that ASM #328 appreciated at 34.3% a year since it was originally sold, does it make sense to think that it will still do so even though it has appreciated 657-fold already? Of course not. Heck, by that logic, the cover should be worth almost $1.6 million now, since another 3 years have passed! When the numbers get larger, the potential growth rate slows. [incidentally, I think 99.99% of OA collectors agree that the cover is worth less than $657K now].

 

Someone asked about China. The insane stock market speculation over there is a separate matter entirely, but, yes, here is a case of a relatively under-developed country with a very long growth path ahead of it, which is why it's no surprise that Chinese growth had been clocking in in the high single-digits and even low double-digits before the Great Recession. That said, as China has grown, you've seen the rate of growth decelerate - now the official number is about 7% at a time when the US is doing 2.4% - it gets harder to maintain growth rates the larger you get. We're simply at different stages of economic development, much as the comic art market above was in 1990 vs. 2015 [same for comic books].

 

Anyone who has ever invested in growth stocks knows that the growth rate eventually slows the larger you get. It's much harder to Apple to grow as a company doing $212 billion in sales vs. when it was doing $50 billion. It's still doing great, but we don't expect future growth rates to be like they were. We don't expect the Apple Watch to have the same impact on the bottom line as earlier product introductions did. The stock price is up almost 29% a year compounded over the past 15 years. Should we really expect that to continue over the next 15 years? Well, guess what - if it does, it's market capitalization will reach $33 TRILLION dollars - which will be more than the GDP of the entire US economy assuming the latter grows at a 2.5% rate over the next 15 years. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

 

Starting conditions matter more than just looking at long-term averages which encompass periods featuring characteristics which are no longer relevant. This is true whether you're looking at comic art, [comic books], individual companies or national economies.

 

Great post.

 

The math doesn't lie, and it's ridiculous to dismiss it just because it doesn't provide an exact timeline of events. The "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" argument implies linear extrapolation (if you were wrong 5-10 years ago, you'll be wrong 5-10 years from now, and 5-10 years after that), and as you've thoroughly outlined here, that simply doesn't work.

 

So, at some point, in some future decade, comic values will decline. When that will happen doesn't matter, because exact timelines don't matter. It will happen though. Probably in five years, unless it doesn't, then it will be in ten years, or maybe fifteen. Definitely in twenty though, or thirty. Because math. And China. And McFarlane art.

 

What a hot take on the comic industry, guys. Thanks for coming out.

[COI]

Yeah but... Your example is a tad extreme. AF15s in 5.5 might go up 5K overnight, or quickly, and that would just leave us in the status quo... The steady price escalation unabated, awaiting the generational cliff dive. It's not fair to posit a 5.5 going to 250k at ANY point !

 

Yeah, but my point was that there are some who will continue to linearly extrapolate the recent past forward indefinitely and believe that AF #15s are bulletproof no matter what happens. This example should show you that this is folly, and that you should actually be looking at the fundamentals instead of assuming that trends will last forever or pointing out that people were wrong 5 or 10 years ago. Neither of those tells anyone anything about what is likely to happen in the future.

 

And it's not like the comic book true believers have a monopoly on linear extrapolation either. I recently argued in this recent stock market thread that some Boardies' expectations for stock market returns from these levels are overly optimistic. It's not 2009 anymore, the market's valuation is a lot higher now, and stocks have reverted strongly back to the mean after being annihilated by forced liquidation in 2008-09. I don't think it's realistic to expect double-digit returns from these levels over the long-term. Which is not to say that one shouldn't invest in stocks - just the opposite, in fact. It means that people should be saving regularly more and taking advantage of pullbacks because future returns are likely to be less than historical returns from this starting point (it would also help to hone one's skills as a value-oriented stockpicker, IMO).

 

Here's a post I pulled from that thread to highlight how one should expect lower growth rates as assets get bigger in size, more mature and more expensive:

 

Here's another analogy that many will probably be able to relate to. The original cover art to Amazing Spider-Man #328 was worth about a grand in 1990. It sold for $657K in 2012 - about a 34% compounded annual return. Similarly, the Dark Knight #2 cover went from $2K to $478K in about 25 years - more than a 24% compounded annual return.

 

Intuitively, we all know that it's much easier to see outsized gains when prices are starting from a low base. Just because that ASM #328 appreciated at 34.3% a year since it was originally sold, does it make sense to think that it will still do so even though it has appreciated 657-fold already? Of course not. Heck, by that logic, the cover should be worth almost $1.6 million now, since another 3 years have passed! When the numbers get larger, the potential growth rate slows. [incidentally, I think 99.99% of OA collectors agree that the cover is worth less than $657K now].

 

Someone asked about China. The insane stock market speculation over there is a separate matter entirely, but, yes, here is a case of a relatively under-developed country with a very long growth path ahead of it, which is why it's no surprise that Chinese growth had been clocking in in the high single-digits and even low double-digits before the Great Recession. That said, as China has grown, you've seen the rate of growth decelerate - now the official number is about 7% at a time when the US is doing 2.4% - it gets harder to maintain growth rates the larger you get. We're simply at different stages of economic development, much as the comic art market above was in 1990 vs. 2015 [same for comic books].

 

Anyone who has ever invested in growth stocks knows that the growth rate eventually slows the larger you get. It's much harder to Apple to grow as a company doing $212 billion in sales vs. when it was doing $50 billion. It's still doing great, but we don't expect future growth rates to be like they were. We don't expect the Apple Watch to have the same impact on the bottom line as earlier product introductions did. The stock price is up almost 29% a year compounded over the past 15 years. Should we really expect that to continue over the next 15 years? Well, guess what - if it does, it's market capitalization will reach $33 TRILLION dollars - which will be more than the GDP of the entire US economy assuming the latter grows at a 2.5% rate over the next 15 years. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

 

Starting conditions matter more than just looking at long-term averages which encompass periods featuring characteristics which are no longer relevant. This is true whether you're looking at comic art, [comic books], individual companies or national economies.

 

Great post.

 

The math doesn't lie, and it's ridiculous to dismiss it just because it doesn't provide an exact timeline of events. The "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" argument implies linear extrapolation (if you were wrong 5-10 years ago, you'll be wrong 5-10 years from now, and 5-10 years after that), and as you've thoroughly outlined here, that simply doesn't work.

 

So, at some point, in some future decade, comic values will decline. When that will happen doesn't matter, because exact timelines don't matter. It will happen though. Probably in five years, unless it doesn't, then it will be in ten years, or maybe fifteen. Definitely in twenty though, or thirty. Because math. And China. And McFarlane art.

 

What a hot take on the comic industry, guys. Thanks for coming out.

 

I'm not saying timelines don't matter; I'm acknowledging that no one has the exact timeline pegged. Your logic seems to be that because no one knows exactly what'll happen or when, we should throw away all this analysis, or not attempt any analysis at all. So no analysis, or "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" is more useful than an attempt to understand the future trajectory of the market using math?

[Pedro1974.5]

to everyone

 

some interesting points being made all along this thread, even if i don't agree with some of them.

 

my question is to the collectors who have already a nice collection. Seeing some prices on a steady rise and the fact that your collection is worth some money (for example you could buy a new car), does it has an impact in how you look and live your collection?

 

regards

 

ps- i rpedict some will answer "well if i need a new car yes, if not no", but don't hesitate on developping other points of view

[Dano]

Yeah but... Your example is a tad extreme. AF15s in 5.5 might go up 5K overnight, or quickly, and that would just leave us in the status quo... The steady price escalation unabated, awaiting the generational cliff dive. It's not fair to posit a 5.5 going to 250k at ANY point !

 

Yeah, but my point was that there are some who will continue to linearly extrapolate the recent past forward indefinitely and believe that AF #15s are bulletproof no matter what happens. This example should show you that this is folly, and that you should actually be looking at the fundamentals instead of assuming that trends will last forever or pointing out that people were wrong 5 or 10 years ago. Neither of those tells anyone anything about what is likely to happen in the future.

 

And it's not like the comic book true believers have a monopoly on linear extrapolation either. I recently argued in this recent stock market thread that some Boardies' expectations for stock market returns from these levels are overly optimistic. It's not 2009 anymore, the market's valuation is a lot higher now, and stocks have reverted strongly back to the mean after being annihilated by forced liquidation in 2008-09. I don't think it's realistic to expect double-digit returns from these levels over the long-term. Which is not to say that one shouldn't invest in stocks - just the opposite, in fact. It means that people should be saving regularly more and taking advantage of pullbacks because future returns are likely to be less than historical returns from this starting point (it would also help to hone one's skills as a value-oriented stockpicker, IMO).

 

Here's a post I pulled from that thread to highlight how one should expect lower growth rates as assets get bigger in size, more mature and more expensive:

 

Here's another analogy that many will probably be able to relate to. The original cover art to Amazing Spider-Man #328 was worth about a grand in 1990. It sold for $657K in 2012 - about a 34% compounded annual return. Similarly, the Dark Knight #2 cover went from $2K to $478K in about 25 years - more than a 24% compounded annual return.

 

Intuitively, we all know that it's much easier to see outsized gains when prices are starting from a low base. Just because that ASM #328 appreciated at 34.3% a year since it was originally sold, does it make sense to think that it will still do so even though it has appreciated 657-fold already? Of course not. Heck, by that logic, the cover should be worth almost $1.6 million now, since another 3 years have passed! When the numbers get larger, the potential growth rate slows. [incidentally, I think 99.99% of OA collectors agree that the cover is worth less than $657K now].

 

Someone asked about China. The insane stock market speculation over there is a separate matter entirely, but, yes, here is a case of a relatively under-developed country with a very long growth path ahead of it, which is why it's no surprise that Chinese growth had been clocking in in the high single-digits and even low double-digits before the Great Recession. That said, as China has grown, you've seen the rate of growth decelerate - now the official number is about 7% at a time when the US is doing 2.4% - it gets harder to maintain growth rates the larger you get. We're simply at different stages of economic development, much as the comic art market above was in 1990 vs. 2015 [same for comic books].

 

Anyone who has ever invested in growth stocks knows that the growth rate eventually slows the larger you get. It's much harder to Apple to grow as a company doing $212 billion in sales vs. when it was doing $50 billion. It's still doing great, but we don't expect future growth rates to be like they were. We don't expect the Apple Watch to have the same impact on the bottom line as earlier product introductions did. The stock price is up almost 29% a year compounded over the past 15 years. Should we really expect that to continue over the next 15 years? Well, guess what - if it does, it's market capitalization will reach $33 TRILLION dollars - which will be more than the GDP of the entire US economy assuming the latter grows at a 2.5% rate over the next 15 years. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

 

Starting conditions matter more than just looking at long-term averages which encompass periods featuring characteristics which are no longer relevant. This is true whether you're looking at comic art, [comic books], individual companies or national economies.

 

Great post.

 

The math doesn't lie, and it's ridiculous to dismiss it just because it doesn't provide an exact timeline of events. The "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" argument implies linear extrapolation (if you were wrong 5-10 years ago, you'll be wrong 5-10 years from now, and 5-10 years after that), and as you've thoroughly outlined here, that simply doesn't work.

 

So, at some point, in some future decade, comic values will decline. When that will happen doesn't matter, because exact timelines don't matter. It will happen though. Probably in five years, unless it doesn't, then it will be in ten years, or maybe fifteen. Definitely in twenty though, or thirty. Because math. And China. And McFarlane art.

 

What a hot take on the comic industry, guys. Thanks for coming out.

 

 

Dan

[Mmehdy]

to everyone

 

some interesting points being made all along this thread, even if i don't agree with some of them.

 

my question is to the collectors who have already a nice collection. Seeing some prices on a steady rise and the fact that your collection is worth some money (for example you could buy a new car), does it has an impact in how you look and live your collection?

 

regards

 

ps- i rpedict some will answer "well if i need a new car yes, if not no", but don't hesitate on developping other points of view

 

 

If you are selling because of the "headline" prices of late..here is something to consider...

 

In the old days, take you comics to the convention or sell thru RBCC etc at a very low cost. You cannot afford a table at the SDCC unless you need a tax write off...and it is just not you making the money...you have to package ship you books to Ha.com.. you have to then reach a deal with Ha. at 19.5% to them plus whatever more they can get out of you.....So at 20% right off the top and in some cases much more...it might just pay to keep them. E-bay is a garbage can....a real hit and miss and they have become very anti-seller with new charges and restrictions with every crook in the book trying to discover a new way to cheat the system. You take a real chance selling thru them.

 

Not as easy as you think to get the "record prices". A dealer is not gonna pay you that either and as a store owner I can understand why and its justified.

 

As far as selling, it goes to the emotional attachment you might have with your collection. I understand today, with such great reprints available and in some times better restored images than the book itself..such as the Planet comics and other great reprints you might be more inclined to give them up and get the superior images and acessablity to which are not encased in plastic or in a safety deposit box. If you are a true comic collector you will keep your comics and buy the reprints also. But to just "buy something else" just because your comic book collection is worth more money..well I vote no

[BarryAllen]

to everyone

 

some interesting points being made all along this thread, even if i don't agree with some of them.

 

my question is to the collectors who have already a nice collection. Seeing some prices on a steady rise and the fact that your collection is worth some money (for example you could buy a new car), does it has an impact in how you look and live your collection?

 

regards

 

ps- i predict some will answer "well if i need a new car yes, if not no", but don't hesitate on developping other points of view

 

I think it depends on: "whether or not you need the money for something else" and "you have sufficiently saved for retirement or other needs outside of comics."

 

If the answer is that you don't need the money and you have enough to retire and meet your other goals (send a kid to college, buy a home, whatever floats your boat, etc) then why sell? :shrug:

 

Unless you just want the money, then you will probably sell. :shrug:

 

Every person is going to have a different situation and thus a different answer to that question.

[october]

 

I'm not saying timelines don't matter; I'm acknowledging that no one has the exact timeline pegged. Your logic seems to be that because no one knows exactly what'll happen or when, we should throw away all this analysis, or not attempt any analysis at all. So no analysis, or "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" is more useful than an attempt to understand the future trajectory of the market using math?

 

My analysis favors, you know, ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the market we are discussing. Buying and selling on a daily basis. going to conventions, noticing small details like the fact that two of the biggest media companies on earth are investing billions into the future of superheroes, seeing the rise of female readers and collectors, and noting how many new young buyers there are for this material. I haven't heard a single compelling argument as to why this won't continue for the near 5-10 year term. Your mileage may vary, but I find actual, hands-on experience in a market more persuasive than the suspect comparisons and "math" that keep cropping up in this thread.

 

But some people don't want to hear that. The above reasons haven't been good enough in the past, and they won't be good enough now. Not because they aren't valid, but because they don't fit the predetermined conclusion. No matter how strong the market is, and it's stronger than it's ever been, some people will always see a cliff right around the corner. It's pure conjecture dressed up in fancy languange and specious comparisons, but it will sway some people who don't know any better. And that's unfortunate.

[Mmehdy]

 

I'm not saying timelines don't matter; I'm acknowledging that no one has the exact timeline pegged. Your logic seems to be that because no one knows exactly what'll happen or when, we should throw away all this analysis, or not attempt any analysis at all. So no analysis, or "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" is more useful than an attempt to understand the future trajectory of the market using math?

 

My analysis favors, you know, ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the market we are discussing. Buying and selling on a daily basis. going to conventions, noticing small details like the fact that two of the biggest media companies on earth are investing billions into the future of superheroes, seeing the rise of female readers and collectors, and noting how many new young buyers there are for this material. I haven't heard a single compelling argument as to why this won't continue for the near 5-10 year term. In general, I find actual, hands-on experience in a market more persuasive than the suspect comparisons and "math" that keep cropping up in this thread.

 

But some people don't want to hear that. The above reasons haven't been good enough in the past, and they won't be good enough now. Not because they aren't valid, but because they don't fit the predetermined conclusion. No matter how strong the market is, and it's stronger than it's ever been, some people will just HAVE to see a cliff around the corner. It's pure conjecture dressed up in fancy languange and specious comparisons, but it will sway some people who don't know any better. And that's unfortunate.

 

There are many positive aspects which I agree with you 100% of the time...new people..BUT they are not buying speculator priced plastic tombs...for miulitples of comic book guide or market price....that is the bubble we are talking about...the 2 dollar comics...I hope the sales go thru the roof.

[BarryAllen]

 

I'm not saying timelines don't matter; I'm acknowledging that no one has the exact timeline pegged. Your logic seems to be that because no one knows exactly what'll happen or when, we should throw away all this analysis, or not attempt any analysis at all. So no analysis, or "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" is more useful than an attempt to understand the future trajectory of the market using math?

 

My analysis favors, you know, ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the market we are discussing. Buying and selling on a daily basis. going to conventions, noticing small details like the fact that two of the biggest media companies on earth are investing billions into the future of superheroes, seeing the rise of female readers and collectors, and noting how many new young buyers there are for this material. I find actual, hands-on experience in a market more persuasive than the suspect comparisons and "math" that keep cropping up in this thread.

 

But some people don't want to hear that. The above reasons haven't been good enough in the past, and they won't be good enough now. Not because they aren't valid, but because they don't fit the predetermined conclusion. No matter how strong the market is, and it's stronger than it's ever been, some people will just HAVE to see a cliff around the corner. It's pure conjecture dressed up in fancy languange and specious comparisons, but it will sway some people who don't know any better. And that's unfortunate.

 

So you see nothing but up for comics forever? How long is your growth curve projection? 10 years, 100 years, forever? Even if you compare comics to another "investment hobby" the vast majority of those have seen sharp declines as their main collecting generation base exits the market - this has happened consistently throughout history. Nothing is popular forever.

 

Separately, and I am sure I don't have to point this out to you, but arguing based on personal experience of a few factors of what have driven comic speculation to unprecedented heights, isn't the same thing as proving comics with continue to grow in value for (insert length of time at your leisure).

 

Are we growing readership? Not really.

 

Is readership more diverse? Sure.

 

Is there a growing fan base for the heroes? For sure.

 

Are these new readers and fans going to turn into comic collectors? Some of them maybe, to early to tell for sure.

 

Will these new collectors become "lifers" and want to spend $1,000's of dollars on vintage comics when they "grow up?" I think that is the question on the table and to be honest, it is still unanswered.

[october]

 

I'm not saying timelines don't matter; I'm acknowledging that no one has the exact timeline pegged. Your logic seems to be that because no one knows exactly what'll happen or when, we should throw away all this analysis, or not attempt any analysis at all. So no analysis, or "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" is more useful than an attempt to understand the future trajectory of the market using math?

 

My analysis favors, you know, ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the market we are discussing. Buying and selling on a daily basis. going to conventions, noticing small details like the fact that two of the biggest media companies on earth are investing billions into the future of superheroes, seeing the rise of female readers and collectors, and noting how many new young buyers there are for this material. I find actual, hands-on experience in a market more persuasive than the suspect comparisons and "math" that keep cropping up in this thread.

 

But some people don't want to hear that. The above reasons haven't been good enough in the past, and they won't be good enough now. Not because they aren't valid, but because they don't fit the predetermined conclusion. No matter how strong the market is, and it's stronger than it's ever been, some people will just HAVE to see a cliff around the corner. It's pure conjecture dressed up in fancy languange and specious comparisons, but it will sway some people who don't know any better. And that's unfortunate.

 

So you see nothing but up for comics forever? How long is your growth curve projection? 10 years, 100 years, forever? Even if you compare comics to another "investment hobby" the vast majority of those have seen sharp declines as their main collecting generation base exits the market - this has happened consistently throughout history. Nothing is popular forever.

 

Separately, and I am sure I don't have to point this out to you, but arguing based on personal experience of a few factors of what have driven comic speculation to unprecedented heights, isn't the same thing as proving comics with continue to grow in value for (insert length of time at your leisure).

 

Are we growing readership? Not really.

 

Is readership more diverse? Sure.

 

Is there a growing fan base for the heroes? For sure.

 

Are these new readers and fans going to turn into comic collectors? Some of them maybe, to early to tell for sure.

 

Will these new collectors become "lifers" and want to spend $1,000's of dollars on vintage comics when they "grow up?" I think that is the question on the table and to be honest, it is still unanswered.

 

5-10 years. Beyond that I don't know.

[BarryAllen]

 

I'm not saying timelines don't matter; I'm acknowledging that no one has the exact timeline pegged. Your logic seems to be that because no one knows exactly what'll happen or when, we should throw away all this analysis, or not attempt any analysis at all. So no analysis, or "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" is more useful than an attempt to understand the future trajectory of the market using math?

 

My analysis favors, you know, ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the market we are discussing. Buying and selling on a daily basis. going to conventions, noticing small details like the fact that two of the biggest media companies on earth are investing billions into the future of superheroes, seeing the rise of female readers and collectors, and noting how many new young buyers there are for this material. I find actual, hands-on experience in a market more persuasive than the suspect comparisons and "math" that keep cropping up in this thread.

 

But some people don't want to hear that. The above reasons haven't been good enough in the past, and they won't be good enough now. Not because they aren't valid, but because they don't fit the predetermined conclusion. No matter how strong the market is, and it's stronger than it's ever been, some people will just HAVE to see a cliff around the corner. It's pure conjecture dressed up in fancy languange and specious comparisons, but it will sway some people who don't know any better. And that's unfortunate.

 

So you see nothing but up for comics forever? How long is your growth curve projection? 10 years, 100 years, forever? Even if you compare comics to another "investment hobby" the vast majority of those have seen sharp declines as their main collecting generation base exits the market - this has happened consistently throughout history. Nothing is popular forever.

 

Separately, and I am sure I don't have to point this out to you, but arguing based on personal experience of a few factors of what have driven comic speculation to unprecedented heights, isn't the same thing as proving comics with continue to grow in value for (insert length of time at your leisure).

 

Are we growing readership? Not really.

 

Is readership more diverse? Sure.

 

Is there a growing fan base for the heroes? For sure.

 

Are these new readers and fans going to turn into comic collectors? Some of them maybe, to early to tell for sure.

 

Will these new collectors become "lifers" and want to spend $1,000's of dollars on vintage comics when they "grow up?" I think that is the question on the table and to be honest, it is still unanswered.

 

5-10 years. Beyond that I don't know.

 

I don't think most people would disagree with that range being relatively "safe." We could argue what type of price increases we would see over that time (and on which books), but that could be the topic of a whole other thread!

[COI]

 

I'm not saying timelines don't matter; I'm acknowledging that no one has the exact timeline pegged. Your logic seems to be that because no one knows exactly what'll happen or when, we should throw away all this analysis, or not attempt any analysis at all. So no analysis, or "you were wrong 5-10 years ago" is more useful than an attempt to understand the future trajectory of the market using math?

 

My analysis favors, you know, ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the market we are discussing. Buying and selling on a daily basis. going to conventions, noticing small details like the fact that two of the biggest media companies on earth are investing billions into the future of superheroes, seeing the rise of female readers and collectors, and noting how many new young buyers there are for this material. I haven't heard a single compelling argument as to why this won't continue for the near 5-10 year term. Your mileage may vary, but I find actual, hands-on experience in a market more persuasive than the suspect comparisons and "math" that keep cropping up in this thread.

 

But some people don't want to hear that. The above reasons haven't been good enough in the past, and they won't be good enough now. Not because they aren't valid, but because they don't fit the predetermined conclusion. No matter how strong the market is, and it's stronger than it's ever been, some people will always see a cliff right around the corner. It's pure conjecture dressed up in fancy languange and specious comparisons, but it will sway some people who don't know any better. And that's unfortunate.

 

I have no doubt that your present experiences buying and selling have been positive because, as you said, the market has never been stronger. This describes every bubble that has existed ever; people do well until they don't. And unless I've missed something, your posts on this topic, at least in the last couple of threads, have been snide drive-bys, and a bit light on experience-based analysis. That doesn't invalidate your experiences, or your overall opinion of where this market is headed, but it doesn't make for any valid refutation of the points being made either. And it's silly to pin selection bias and conjecture on one side of the debate because it's occurring on both sides, and seeing as how conjecture is an inherent part of any discussion of potentialities, I'm not sure why you keep pointing that out. As for deriding those who "always see a cliff around the corner", you say this as if the dealers, flippers and speculators wouldn't have a bias towards ignoring that cliff if it was, in fact, right around the corner.