Dealers/Art Reps - Do they charge too much?

[Lucky Baru]

In another thread a discussion about a dealer kind of got off track and evolved into dealers charge above fair market value (FMV) and that's not right. Personally, I have found that some reps and dealers are easier to deal with than others. Some charge more than I'm willing to pay and some seem to charge what I view as being fair.

 

I believe two things will cause the more established dealers/reps to slowly fade out of the business:

 

1) With prices of OA art going through the ceiling the majority of new collectors will have to turn to newer art. That means turning to the artist or reps that are out there beating the bushes at cons today that pull the newer "hot" artist into their stable.

 

2) How many of you who have been in this hobby from the last 20 to 30 years could afford to recreate your collections at today's prices? As the prices climb the pool of collectors that can afford the pieces that that climbed into the $ stratosphere become fewer and fewer. Thus, if you wanted to get into the OA hobby today you almost have to turn your attention to modern artist to get the most bang for your buck.

 

The younger less established ones might be hungrier and want that business more than the established ones.

 

Like everyone else the dealer and reps of today's market are in the business of making money. I don't fault them for doing that. I don't understand when other people do. Just as I don't fault company A, B, or C from making a buck.

 

That's what businesses do.

 

We are having a tornado warning so I'll finish the above thoughts later......

[Bird]

well they don't charge too little, that's for sure!

[Brian Peck]

1) With prices of OA art going through the ceiling the majority of new collectors will have to turn to newer art. That means turning to the artist or reps that are out there beating the bushes at cons today that pull the newer "hot" artist into their stable.

 

2) How many of you who have been in this hobby from the last 20 to 30 years could afford to recreate your collections at today's prices? As the prices climb the pool of collectors that can afford the pieces that that climbed into the $ stratosphere become fewer and fewer. Thus, if you wanted to get into the OA hobby today you almost have to turn your attention to modern artist to get the most bang for your buck.

 

1) Most of my collecting of vintage art is driven by nostalgia and certain artists I grew up reading John Buscema, Dave Cockrum and Gene Colan to name a few. Most of the new artists and their styles do nothing for me and have ZERO nostalgia. Yes there a some new artist I like but I would never consider replacing art that has a strong nostalgia for new art because its cheaper.

 

2) It would be very hard to recreate my collection at the rices of today but I buy what I like and can afford. Thats all you can do.

 

[Garf]

In another thread a discussion about a dealer kind of got off track and evolved into dealers charge above fair market value (FMV) and that's not right. Personally, I have found that some reps and dealers are easier to deal with than others. Some charge more than I'm willing to pay and some seem to charge what I view as being fair.

 

I believe two things will cause the more established dealers/reps to slowly fade out of the business:

 

1) With prices of OA art going through the ceiling the majority of new collectors will have to turn to newer art. That means turning to the artist or reps that are out there beating the bushes at cons today that pull the newer "hot" artist into their stable.

 

2) How many of you who have been in this hobby from the last 20 to 30 years could afford to recreate your collections at today's prices? As the prices climb the pool of collectors that can afford the pieces that that climbed into the $ stratosphere become fewer and fewer. Thus, if you wanted to get into the OA hobby today you almost have to turn your attention to modern artist to get the most bang for your buck.

 

The younger less established ones might be hungrier and want that business more than the established ones.

 

Like everyone else the dealer and reps of today's market are in the business of making money. I don't fault them for doing that. I don't understand when other people do. Just as I don't fault company A, B, or C from making a buck.

 

That's what businesses do.

 

We are having a tornado warning so I'll finish the above thoughts later......

 

That doesn't quite add up. At least not in the way I approach this hobby. Brian has already summed it up for me above, this kind of art collecting is heavily nostalgia driven (it's about the whole package, including the writer) and if you don't buy what you can afford.... well then you aren't going to be holding onto it for long anyway.

 

Does it matter if new collectors turn to modern art if that is what they are reading? If it isn't what they are reading then the hobby is going to be dying on its feet anyway.

 

When it comes to reaching for the loftier pieces, well I hope I can get at least one of the more expensive pages I have been looking for over the next few years. Sure I don't want to have to pay that price tag if I can avoid it, but it probably just means that I will only ever have one such page.

 

Sure people aren't able to put together as formidable a collection as others that have been going for years / decades at today's prices... but then dealers also aren't able to restock vintage art easily in the face of demand.

 

Asides from all that I am honestly a bit confused as to what the point is here. Is it pretty much that the vintage OA market is due a correction?

[Bird]

It would be the same as saying...who here could recreate your stock portfolio at today's prices?

[Brian Peck]

Many people would liked to have bought Apple, MS, Google etc stock when it was super cheap. Just like we would have loved to have bought Kirby, Romita, Buscema, Byrne vintage art when it was super cheap. But it is what it is.

[Meeley Man]

As a rep myself, the one thing I'll say that a rep deals with, that general dealers don't, is dealing directly with the artist. I, myself, try to keep my artists informed on the market and what pricing should be, to keep prices as affordable as I can, but if an artist wants a set price on something, regardless of what the market says, I have no choice but to sell at their price. It is their property, after all. A general dealer doesn't have to do that. They can sell for whatever they want. True, if they are buying at FMV, it will mean they will ask more for it, but how much is totally up to them. 10%, 50%, 100%, 300% above FMV, it's their call.

 

So, if you see a general dealer asking absurd prices, you know it is what they are choosing to do. With an art rep, that is not usually the case. Just something folks might want to keep in mind, when they want to complain about pricing above FMV.

[alxjhnsn]

My experience says they charge:

• More than I want to pay and
  
• Less than they'd like to get

Profound, I know.

 

[Lucky Baru]

Asides from all that I am honestly a bit confused as to what the point is here. Is it pretty much that the vintage OA market is due a correction?

 

The point I was leading up to was to ask if you thought dealers and reps charged too much? (I would have gotten there but a tornado warning kind of stopped that from happening). I don’t think that the dealers and reps charge too much. They charge what the market will allow them to.

 

Do I think there will be a correction? On older art that isn’t considered to be produced by whatever “master” I’d lean towards a yes. That occurs in the art world outside of comics all the time. As you have pointed out, the pages that bring the highest value hold ZERO nostalgia for those entering the OA market today. I have ZERO interest in Jack Kurby pages/covers. Yes, Kirby’s work will hold onto the value as he is a “master”. However, Kirby’s work represents the comics my dad or grandfather read. I find them bland when compared to a David Finch page/cover. Just where my interest in art moves towards. McSpidey/Bagley pages define what the Spider-Man character looks like to me. The web that was draw before McFarlane looks like an silly string coming out and then it expands into some lower cased “m” pattern in between heavy straight lines into some sort of net. It looks tame and BORING!

 

It is finding those newer “masters” in modern art that is the challenge if you are in it for dollars. I’m not, I collect what I like. My big five artist and the pages/covers I desire are going to be very different from those sought by others. Everyone has a different approach to the hobby. My nostalgic period began or arose in the time of the Independent comic companies. Their stable of artist who weren’t underpaid, weren't overworked, and had their creative rights held-up in legal action.

 

I understand that others will find my above views on Kirby/Romita to be blasphemous. It is not that I don’t view their work as great. I understand the view-point that it is great. It just isn’t my thing. Just like some people like The Beatles and some like Pearl Jam. Both are good music. Some people prefer one over the other. Kind of like in the autograph world Eddie Vedder's autograph and Mick Jagger's are both sought after by different generations in the hobby.

 

My experience says they charge:

• More than I want to pay and
  
• Less than they'd like to get

Profound, I know.

 

Spot on though.

 

[AKA Rick]

There's two schools of thought at times with collectors when it comes to pricing and valuation.

 

1) Those who wish prices by an artist stayed the same so they could acquire more.

 

2) Those who hold positions in an artist, see the prices goes up, gets outpriced to acquire more, but appreciate the fact that they're satisfied by the positions they currently own and increased value, so are at peace with the potential of not securing more artwork by that artist.

 

Personally, I do think anyone who spends over $1,000 on a piece of paper has a mindful eye towards value and it's more than just an impulsive pick up and becomes somewhat of an investment, so with that, many collectors should care about the value and maybe be thankful for what they have.

 

It's like owning Apple Stock valued at $700 a share and a person who owns it wishing the value would tank so they could buy more ('tho that may not be the most appropriate analogy since with stocks it's more of a roller coaster that many like to day trade and ride the market fluctuations).

 

In an alternate scenario, if a person loved an artist, bought many pieces, then the market crashed by 75% would that collector feel "burned" or would that collector "cost average" and buy more if investing, or call it a day and move on?

 

 

When it comes to art sales, there's also varied pricing styles at times motivated by different agendas:

 

1) Business folk who just want a certain ROI, some willing to take small margins, some willing to even take losses on slow moving inventory, knowing there are some pieces they make higher margins on.

 

2) Unreasonable sellers with a "it'll take mega dollars to pry this art from my dead hands" attitude where pricing is so pie in the sky high that the pieces are forever being offered and their inventory does not move other than the random money bags customer that comes along who must have the piece at any cost, or for trades. A lot of collectors out there place greater value on their possessions than they're actually worth or what the market would bear.

 

3) Sellers who are essentially collectors who just want to show off their collection but based on their "please inquire" pricing, have really no true intention to make a reasonable effort to sell

 

I don't think most dealers and reps charge too much only because "too much" is a very subjective term when it comes to one-of-a-kind collectibles (there's thousands of copies of a published comic book and a collector can afford to wait and shop around whereas original art isn't the same type of marketplace). I do think there's a lot of sellers out there who keep pushing the same product at the same price who, if they did their research on the historical precedent of comparable sales they should reduce their prices. But, again, there's a lot of hybrid collector/sellers out there who quite frankly have full time jobs and only sell artwork as side income or even just to fuel their own spending within the hobby.

 

I like the auction models for the buying/selling of original art only because it is the closest way of actualizing marketplace value and the happy medium where buyer and seller meet and agree.

 

I do find most art reps pricing is somewhat reflected on a small margin mark up, maybe between 5-20% of what the artist wants, and that's to cover their well deserved (for coordinating the sale) and earned overhead and efforts. With dealing with art reps and artists direct, the prices seem to be more negotiable as well too, so don't be afraid to make an offer if you think the price is too high, the worst they can say is "no" and the best they can say is "yes" and there's a lot of potentially beneficial negotiation room in between that can be appeasing.

 

 

[Meeley Man]

I do find most art reps pricing is somewhat reflected on a small margin mark up, maybe between 5-20% of what the artist wants, and that's to cover their well deserved (for coordinating the sale) and earned overhead and efforts. With dealing with art reps and artists direct, the prices seem to be more negotiable as well too, so don't be afraid to make an offer if you think the price is too high, the worst they can say is "no" and the best they can say is "yes" and there's a lot of potentially beneficial negotiation room in between that can be appeasing.

 

[Doc McCoy]

My experience says they charge:

• More than I want to pay and
  
• Less than they'd like to get

Profound, I know.

[alxjhnsn]

Re: "miniature Buddha"

Sadly, nothing miniature about this Buddha. Sigh ... :smile:

 

[oceans11]

Many people would liked to have bought Apple, MS, Google etc stock when it was super cheap. Just like we would have loved to have bought Kirby, Romita, Buscema, Byrne vintage art when it was super cheap. But it is what it is.

 

But isn't super cheap a perspective thing? I mean, I remember Romita Sr and Romita Jr doing sketches at Wondercon in Oakland in 1999, and Romita Sr was priced at $100 and Romita Jr at $60. That's super cheap by today's standard, but back in 1999, I was only able to afford one piece done by Romita Jr (which I was getting to give to my best man at my wedding that year). My earning level back then was nowhere near where it is now, so sure.. we can say the art was super cheap in hindsight, but was it really as cheap as we perceive it to be only because we aren't factoring in people's income levels at the time? I know that if I was at the same show earning what I earn now, then I'd probably be getting multiple sketches from both guys. And I'm not even on the same level as some guys I know who now have careers in more lucrative fields, and who have a much higher level of disposable income to spend on such things. Sure art prices have increased, but the stuff is still selling at its current pricing, so it appears to be FMV to someone.

 

 

 

 

[vodou]

But isn't super cheap a perspective thing?

It's not, unless all other things are equal. Which is really only a philosophical conceit. That does not exist in the real world. What does exist is many moving parts, some fast and some slower than others, some forward, some backward and nothing terribly consistent and predictable! (Imagine what getting a surprise layoff does to your feelings of consistent and predictable income, for example.)

 

Ideally we would know what the median (or mean, also useful) income of comic art collectors is through history or at least the most useful period, maybe the last 35 years (back to 1980). That would give us a nice juicy dataset to work with. We don't have that but we do have the median for the entire USA. Not ideal as over 99% of the entire USA does not collect comic art, but what can you do? Well you can use your own income over time and compare it to prices over time. Which is rising faster, your price (income) or their price (art)? And that's how you can clear the fog.

 

For most people, working full-time as an adult twenty years ago, ten years ago, and today, their income growth has lagged art growth through that period. So not perspective. That's my personal experience too, though with only a twenty-five year view.

[delekkerste]

For most people, working full-time as an adult twenty years ago, ten years ago, and today, their income growth has lagged art growth through that period. So not perspective. That's my personal experience too, though with only a twenty-five year view.

 

Unless your name is Larry Page, Sergey Brin or Elon Musk, chances are that your income growth has lagged art price appreciation over the past 25 years - that's just simple math. What many people overlook, though, is that the median collector age has moved up substantially since that time. Look at the biggest spenders today - most of them are in their 40s, while some old hands are now in their 50s and 60s. 25 years ago, the former group was in their teens and early 20s, while the latter group was in their 20s and 30s. I don't think any of today's major players had even hit 40 twenty-five years ago.

 

Basically you had a Golden Generation of comic fans who started their careers 20-25 years ago and really hit their stride at various points between then and now, which was a big factor in the price escalation we've seen. This generation has really been the driving force in the development and maturation of the market over the past two decades (oh, sure, there are big players in their 50s and 60s too, but it's today's 40-somethings that have been doing most of the buying). But, this cohort is aging with every year. So far, that has been a boon to the market as they aged into professional maturity. At some point, though, as they peak out of their prime buying years, that's going to have an impact on the trajectory of the market.

 

I have little doubt that demography, not changing perceptions of artistic merit or cultural importance, has been and will continue to be the main driver of the OA market in the coming years.