What artist work do you believe is undervalued?

[malvin]

I think other people are articulating what I was not able to articulate in my earlier post.

 

Never say never, but there are few, if any, under valued artist. Under appreciated yes, but it's all relative. You obviously like them while the rest of the market doesn't.

 

Undervalued means it is worth more today. And it's happening because there is something that "you" know that others do not. Once everyone knows, then it will be fairly valued.

 

So yeah, one possible example is an obscure artists that no one has seen before, and you happen to have seen his work and thinks it's great. You also know he is working on X-men, Batman or whatever, so that point, he might be undervalued. But once his X-men/Batman books comes out, then it's no longer undervalued.

 

As for the McFarlane Infinity Incorporated and Perez Prime example. I fail to see what the secret, non public information is. Everyone knows they work on those. The prices reflect the average of what people are willing to pay knowing that information.

 

Malvin

[JadeGiant]

Agreed – sounds like semantics to me …. undervalued, underappreciated … to me it is all a way to say that you believe the market is “behind” on something and that it will correct itself (probably dramatically) in the future. I collect art more for personal enjoyment and satisfaction (not building it into my retirement plan) and employ the “buy what I like” strategy for building my collection. I did get caught up in this when I was collecting comics and try not to make the same mistake again in hobbies I have entered since then. I have too many stacks of duplicate comics that never appreciated (minus the stack of NM98s) and now just take up space.

[vodou]

Going to Malvin's example an unknown artist that will be or just got on a big book...That's the art that will move the most anyway, the off-brand older work yes but not really. And after that one pop, the off-brand remains flat. This is all the McFarlane "before ASM and Hulk" art.

 

The real game for years (and maybe still?) was exploiting artists that underprice their own art. The example above works if the artists prices his Batman art the same as his off-brand (that hasn't been selling all that well)...and you're the first to hit his table and scoop it all up (we know who those dealers are). The same works for established artists that don't price perfect to market (the old $100 AH! sketch list for example). But let's be clear this is exploitation (or arbitrage if you have to pretty it up). It's not underrated or undervalued. It's under-priced.

 

This is an unpredictable aberration though, not something you can build a lifestyle (of income) around exploiting. Artists are not "stupid" (for lack of a better word) forever and the expectation of finding new "stupid" artists...well harder and harder in an eBay/internet age where information arbitrage is harder to come by every day (if it even exists in 2015 at all). And if you have any conscience at all...it's just kind of a shtty way to be, at least as a way of doing business (vs. a one-time thing).

 

That's actually the downside of becoming friends with an artist, you can't shark-feed out of their portfolios anymore. If you have a conscience.

[malvin]

 

 

The real game for years (and maybe still?) was exploiting artists that underprice their own art. The example above works if the artists prices his Batman art the same as his off-brand (that hasn't been selling all that well)...and you're the first to hit his table and scoop it all up (we know who those dealers are). The same works for established artists that don't price perfect to market (the old $100 AH! sketch list for example). But let's be clear this is exploitation (or arbitrage if you have to pretty it up). It's not underrated or undervalued. It's under-priced.

 

Yes, there are market inefficiencies, so there are deals to be had if someone doesn't price their art properly (or sell at an obscure auction site).

 

This is going off topic, but I think exploiting is a very strong word. They named the price. It's not as if they asked you for advice on market price because they trusted you and you gave them a low number so that they can buy it all. Some artists price their art low just to get rid of them. In the case of AH, he knew his prices were low, he purposely did it so his fans could have a chance of an affordable sketch (and I completely disagreed with that approach and I'm glad he stopped)

 

Malvin

[chrisco37]

Did buy what you like when it's cheap 'n available actually burn you as most everything else went up?

 

I can't speak to others, but, yes, it burned me. Kind of like what Bronty said ("I buy very little mainstream art because I am generally unhappy with what I get for what I pay. So I buy certain illo art that I think is undervalued and when I buy comic art at all it's usually art from 80s independents because those are often cheaper yet I like them as much or more as anything from the big two/ three"), I applied that approach very early on in my collecting career. I'm a big fan of Warren art, particularly Vampirella, and I bought up a lot of it in my first few years of collecting instead of buying the mainstream Marvel art that I also love. My collecting dollar went much further with Warren art, of course, and, frankly, at the time, it seemed like Byrne X-Men pages were ubiquitous and would continue to be priced within reach and available when I decided to turn my attention there!

 

While some of the Warren art I bought has appreciated in value, all of it has lagged mainstream superhero art by a wide margin. Had I put my dollars into mainstream superhero art then, and focused on Warren art now, I'd have gotten so much more art for my money. Obviously, that's more opportunity cost than outright loss, but, given your economically analytical inclinations, I'm sure you recognize that this qualifies as getting burned. Kind of like earning a nominal return that does not come anywhere close to earning a positive return after inflation (where inflation in this case being the appreciation on mainstream art).

 

And, it's not like we can't point to other art that has probably done even worse - there's countless Modern pages out there that people may have bought because they liked, but for which there is simply "No Bid" for nowadays. I remember being at the Baltimore Comic-Con with a friend some years ago where he bought a page or two from the Ultimate Daredevil & Elektra series. Trust me when I say that nobody else will ever want the pages he bought (nothing pages that had some shots of his alma mater, Columbia University). Not that he spent big bucks, but, trust me when I say those pages are worthless - and there are countless other pages out there like those. I have another friend who buys a lot of GGA, but for which there is an extremely limited market. He's certainly not fared very well from a financial perspective with that art.

 

I'm not saying don't buy what you like, or follow the crowd even if you don't like it. Not at all. I still buy art that I'm sure few others care about if it really strikes a nostalgic or other chord with me. But, if you're living hand-to-mouth like my GGA collecting friend and are counting on some kind of financial return on your collecting pursuits, you may want to take more into consideration than just "buy what you like, even when it's cheap and available". Things can be Cheap/Available For A Reason and opportunity costs are very real as well.

 

I remember him buying those as well.

[vodou]

 

This is going off topic, but I think exploiting is a very strong word. They named the price. It's not as if they asked you for advice on market price because they trusted you and you gave them a low number so that they can buy it all. Some artists price their art low just to get rid of them. In the case of AH, he knew his prices were low, he purposely did it so his fans could have a chance of an affordable sketch (and I completely disagreed with that approach and I'm glad he stopped)

 

Malvin

Yes it is a strong word, I used it quite intentionally. It's exploitation when somebody is pricing for one reason but finds that another is actually the case and changes their pricing or supply. The perfect example of this is AH! He priced at $100, then $200, then $400 to provide fans a lower-priced outlet for his art than resellers were. Then he found out the art was ending up in the hands of resellers not fans. So he tried various ways to mitigate this and eventually eliminate the supply.

 

The fact that he didn't continue to sell "at a loss" (if you will) is the evidence of the exploitation. He certainly could afford to, but the arb value wasn't going to the intended recipients, so he simply stopped. If it was a case of inefficiency, he would have continued (until he got tired of drawing at shows for other reasons).

[mister_not_so_nice]

I guess the better question then, is who are the next artists who are currently "reasonably price" but who will see a quantum jump in value?

 

 

I would appreciate this info as well, along with where I can find said art....and a loan to procure selfsame.

 

Look at my CAF and buy the exact OPPOSITE

 

 

What's the opposite of primo Preacher artwork?

 

Everything else

I've seen you post this sort of comment occasionally over the years. Is it really true? I'm neither a Preacher fan nor collector (simply never read it) so I just don't know. Did buy what you like when it's cheap 'n available actually burn you as most everything else went up?

 

Not wholly facetious.

 

Aside from the PREACHER pages, most of what I collect I seem to be one of a few with those artist's names in my CAF (If not the only one). But, since I'm more of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" collector I'm not sure. Meaning, once I get a page I like to hold on to it. I'm not one to do a sell-off every few months as my newest "grail" has made itself available. I prefer to keep what I have and hope to get some more than constantly chase what might be.

 

For better or worse I'll keep the multiple pieces worth $xxxx and forego that one painting worth $xxxx (even though I'd love to own a painting by the artist).

[Bronty]

 

This is going off topic, but I think exploiting is a very strong word. They named the price. It's not as if they asked you for advice on market price because they trusted you and you gave them a low number so that they can buy it all. Some artists price their art low just to get rid of them. In the case of AH, he knew his prices were low, he purposely did it so his fans could have a chance of an affordable sketch (and I completely disagreed with that approach and I'm glad he stopped)

 

Malvin

Yes it is a strong word, I used it quite intentionally. It's exploitation when somebody is pricing for one reason but finds that another is actually the case and changes their pricing or supply. The perfect example of this is AH! He priced at $100, then $200, then $400 to provide fans a lower-priced outlet for his art than resellers were. Then he found out the art was ending up in the hands of resellers not fans. So he tried various ways to mitigate this and eventually eliminate the supply.

 

The fact that he didn't continue to sell "at a loss" (if you will) is the evidence of the exploitation. He certainly could afford to, but the arb value wasn't going to the intended recipients, so he simply stopped. If it was a case of inefficiency, he would have continued (until he got tired of drawing at shows for other reasons).

 

It's a two way street. I've had artists try to "exploit" me too. At the end if the day it's like anything; if you agree on a price that's the end of it if you ask me

[vodou]

[it's a two way street. I've had artists try to "exploit" me too. At the end if the day it's like anything; if you agree on a price that's the end of it if you ask me

Oh! I should add I'm a free-market guy, so I agree with this. If the deal turns out to be lopsided though, you may not be able to replicate it or do business again with that person. So there can be an intangible tradeoff, likewise striving to be more open, fair, whatever in your dealings can have intangible rewards. A good reputation and word of mouth referrals from a trusted network can be woth a lot more than one really hot score (exploitation!) That's all

[Bronty]

(Thumbs u

[comix4fun]

 

This is going off topic, but I think exploiting is a very strong word. They named the price. It's not as if they asked you for advice on market price because they trusted you and you gave them a low number so that they can buy it all. Some artists price their art low just to get rid of them. In the case of AH, he knew his prices were low, he purposely did it so his fans could have a chance of an affordable sketch (and I completely disagreed with that approach and I'm glad he stopped)

 

Malvin

Yes it is a strong word, I used it quite intentionally. It's exploitation when somebody is pricing for one reason but finds that another is actually the case and changes their pricing or supply. The perfect example of this is AH! He priced at $100, then $200, then $400 to provide fans a lower-priced outlet for his art than resellers were. Then he found out the art was ending up in the hands of resellers not fans. So he tried various ways to mitigate this and eventually eliminate the supply.

 

The fact that he didn't continue to sell "at a loss" (if you will) is the evidence of the exploitation. He certainly could afford to, but the arb value wasn't going to the intended recipients, so he simply stopped. If it was a case of inefficiency, he would have continued (until he got tired of drawing at shows for other reasons).

 

It's a two way street. I've had artists try to "exploit" me too. At the end if the day it's like anything; if you agree on a price that's the end of it if you ask me

 

 

 

Oh God....that reminds me of the most (unintentionally) hilarious interaction I ever had with an artist.

 

I had been seeking a painting by a fantasy artist for a few years. It wasn't a super high end item...Once I tracked it down, I was too late and found out that it had just sold at auction for around $1,000 about 6 months earlier.

 

Unable to get the original piece I contacted the artist to see if he was interested in making me a recreation of the original. He enthusiastically said he was interested and we discussed the piece. Same size as the original, same everything (except for the date of the piece showing it's a recreation).

 

Then he quotes me the price of $10,000 (BTW This wasn't Frazetta, just in case the $1,000 sale price at auction wasn't a tip off), once the paramedics were able to revive me I asked him flat out...."How'd you come up with that price?"

 

His response was classic and one I've never heard before or since:

 

"Well, you see, I have to hire all the models and then there's the costume rental, and lighting rental, etc."

 

He was going to reenact the scene from the painting in real life with models in costume and paint from that.

 

I mess YOU NOT.

 

Once I realized that, perhaps, we were each vibrating at difference frequencies of reality I felt it best to cease our pen pal relationship.

[delekkerste]

Oh God....that reminds me of the most (unintentionally) hilarious interaction I ever had with an artist.

 

I had been seeking a painting by a fantasy artist for a few years. It wasn't a super high end item...Once I tracked it down, I was too late and found out that it had just sold at auction for around $1,000 about 6 months earlier.

 

And, at long last, the truth comes out.

 

Chris is a closet Boris fanatic.

[comix4fun]

Oh God....that reminds me of the most (unintentionally) hilarious interaction I ever had with an artist.

 

I had been seeking a painting by a fantasy artist for a few years. It wasn't a super high end item...Once I tracked it down, I was too late and found out that it had just sold at auction for around $1,000 about 6 months earlier.

 

And, at long last, the truth comes out.

 

Chris is a closet Boris fanatic.

 

 

The original I was chasing was only $1k at auction.

 

The guy who had the original, bought it out of auction, wanted Boris in trade....at 3 times value to what he had just paid. He was asking the wrong guy.

[Eric Seffinga]

So you missed out buying a Boris painting?

Seems to me your story had a happy ending after all!

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

So you missed out buying a Boris painting?

Seems to me your story had a happy ending after all!

 

 

 

 

[Bronty]

Proud owner of 10 or so Boris and Julie's and I made more on selling on three of them than I had paid for all 13

 

There's nothing wrong with their work. Do they have a few groaners, sure who doesn't, but I'll take the movie art to European vacation anytime, among others.

[comix4fun]

Proud owner of 10 or so Boris and Julie's and I made more on selling on three of them than I had paid for all 13

 

There's nothing wrong with their work. Do they have a few groaners, sure who doesn't, but I'll take the movie art to European vacation anytime, among others.

 

 

 

I think it was just a bad guess on Gene's part.

 

It wasn't Boris, his published stuff was worth WAY more than the painting I was chasing.

[Bronty]

Oh I know and I take no offense

 

But they shouldn't be a punch line either. There's far less talented artists all over the place

[Bronty]

 

This is going off topic, but I think exploiting is a very strong word. They named the price. It's not as if they asked you for advice on market price because they trusted you and you gave them a low number so that they can buy it all. Some artists price their art low just to get rid of them. In the case of AH, he knew his prices were low, he purposely did it so his fans could have a chance of an affordable sketch (and I completely disagreed with that approach and I'm glad he stopped)

 

Malvin

Yes it is a strong word, I used it quite intentionally. It's exploitation when somebody is pricing for one reason but finds that another is actually the case and changes their pricing or supply. The perfect example of this is AH! He priced at $100, then $200, then $400 to provide fans a lower-priced outlet for his art than resellers were. Then he found out the art was ending up in the hands of resellers not fans. So he tried various ways to mitigate this and eventually eliminate the supply.

 

The fact that he didn't continue to sell "at a loss" (if you will) is the evidence of the exploitation. He certainly could afford to, but the arb value wasn't going to the intended recipients, so he simply stopped. If it was a case of inefficiency, he would have continued (until he got tired of drawing at shows for other reasons).

 

It's a two way street. I've had artists try to "exploit" me too. At the end if the day it's like anything; if you agree on a price that's the end of it if you ask me

 

 

 

Oh God....that reminds me of the most (unintentionally) hilarious interaction I ever had with an artist.

 

I had been seeking a painting by a fantasy artist for a few years. It wasn't a super high end item...Once I tracked it down, I was too late and found out that it had just sold at auction for around $1,000 about 6 months earlier.

 

Unable to get the original piece I contacted the artist to see if he was interested in making me a recreation of the original. He enthusiastically said he was interested and we discussed the piece. Same size as the original, same everything (except for the date of the piece showing it's a recreation).

 

Then he quotes me the price of $10,000 (BTW This wasn't Frazetta, just in case the $1,000 sale price at auction wasn't a tip off), once the paramedics were able to revive me I asked him flat out...."How'd you come up with that price?"

 

His response was classic and one I've never heard before or since:

 

"Well, you see, I have to hire all the models and then there's the costume rental, and lighting rental, etc."

 

He was going to reenact the scene from the painting in real life with models in costume and paint from that.

 

I mess YOU NOT.

 

Once I realized that, perhaps, we were each vibrating at difference frequencies of reality I felt it best to cease our pen pal relationship.

 

I've been in many silly situations as well (although that's way up there). Can't blame you for not speaking to him again.

 

If one just buys at auction one won't see this side of it but where one is buying from the source or relatively close thereto one is quickly reminded that for every buyer trying to game a seller there is a seller trying to game a buyer.

 

I sold something (not art) for 15k a couple/ few years ago and when I asked about the possibility of a buy back about nine months later I was quoted 250k with a straight face. Ticks me off to this day and I can no longer enjoy that particular pen pal relationship either.

 

But, the point is, almost everyone plays the game, artists very much included.

 

I'm personally always happy for someone if they manage to resell something purchased from me at a profit - we all win that way. The example above in theory I should be OK with but the amount asked was so offensive that I am not able to practice what I preach on that particular deal

[comix4fun]

Wow...that's a markup.