• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Value: Image vs Nostalgia?

Started by Babin,

77 posts in this topic

Babin

Babin

Posted
Posted

In another thread the following opinion was posted in regards to Bernie Wrightson Frankenstein plate art:

 

I think those franky plates will be poor investments long term. All image, no nostalgia spells trouble to me

 

It seems to me that in the truly long term, it's nostalgia that's the bad investment. In the medium term, sure, when a generation which grew up on an artist or a comic or a character reaches its years of peak financial liquidity, it will pay more and more to try to recapture its youth.

 

But nostalgia can only drive prices for so long. At some point, everyone who remembers the original incarnation of a piece will be dead. What happens then?

 

I think great images will be valued long after nostalgia has disappeared. That's why I'd rather pass to my heirs a Little Nemo Sunday page than a Peanuts. A Wally Wood Analog illustration than a Wally Wood Daredevil.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKA Rick

AKA Rick

Posted
Posted

I 'd disagree to the degree that there will always be fans, look no further than with Music, forget about how long since dead Beethoven is yet symphonies still play his work, but even with pop music and how all of the generations appreciate the artists with staying power, be it the kids of today enjoying stuff from the 60's, 70's, and 80's before they were even born. Look at the sports memorabilia market, and I'd say Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle and other players are iconic to the degree they'll continue to be idolized forever as the folklore of their legacy will always remain strong. Same with Litertature, as well as with the autograph collecting community.

 

So, tied to nostalgia is legacy, in that what has been main stream. Some are flat out more historical with sustainable recognizablity.

 

Quite frankly, and maybe I'm not an art connoisseur, but I've never heard of "Little Nemo" and would speculate if you polled 10,000 random people about "Little Nemo" most would either think you're referring to Disney's "Finding Nemo" or "The Little Mermaid" whereas, if you polled 10,000 random people about "Peanuts" most would know that, or maybe more so by the most popular character "Snoopy."

 

The Peanuts just had a movie released, closing in on $100 million in the box office with licensed promotions at McDonalds and merchandise recognized worldwide. I'm not so sure what the prospects are of keeping properties like "Little Nemo" alive nor relevant, not to knock 'em, but just looking at it from an objective 10,000 foot view.

 

With collectibles, some people collect for vanity purposes, of having something many others want, most would recognized and others would praise. Recognizability and being part of the mainstream are elements that garner those reactions. Niche collectibles are also popular and have their own fan base, not to take away form their importance nor valuation... but if looking at any collectible where prices/values are driven by supply/demand, I'd invest more into what I'd think people "would" like and want more so than what people "should" like, with diminished regard to critical acclaim.

 

But that's my opinion from the investor's standpoint. From passing along artwork that is meaningful to an individual to their heirs, regardless of value, then what was true to the heart is the best gift for them to then remember how much it meant to their ancestors.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dumur

Dumur

Posted
Posted

My collection is 90/10 pure nostalgia to pure image as primary reason why I own the piece. Though I also like to think some of the nostalgia comes from the fact that the image was powerful enough at the time I saw it to plant the seed that would later become nostalgia.

 

But yeah, my reasons for buying apiece are near 100% nostalgia driven. I have a few purely image pieces, but not many and I will also admit that when I sell, they are the first to go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer

Posted
Posted
And to just perhaps double up on a point, just because something is nostalgic, doesn't mean it isn't also a great image.

 

They usually go hand in hand. If I think back at some of my favorite issues as a kid they were a combination of fantastic art or a superb cover plus great story lines. It starts with the cover. I can remember a few issues that I was fortunate to read off the rack and these covers grabbed me by my throat; Iron Man #150, Avengers #164-#166 [Nefaria], X-Men #112-#113, ASM#238, FF#243, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
In another thread the following opinion was posted in regards to Bernie Wrightson Frankenstein plate art:

 

I think those franky plates will be poor investments long term. All image, no nostalgia spells trouble to me

 

It seems to me that in the truly long term, it's nostalgia that's the bad investment. In the medium term, sure, when a generation which grew up on an artist or a comic or a character reaches its years of peak financial liquidity, it will pay more and more to try to recapture its youth.

 

But nostalgia can only drive prices for so long. At some point, everyone who remembers the original incarnation of a piece will be dead. What happens then?

 

I think great images will be valued long after nostalgia has disappeared. That's why I'd rather pass to my heirs a Little Nemo Sunday page than a Peanuts. A Wally Wood Analog illustration than a Wally Wood Daredevil.

 

Thoughts?

 

"context" might have been a better word for me to use than nostalgia.

 

Point is, image alone isn't worth squat.

 

Otherwise the AF15 cover recreation by Kirby would be worth the same as if it was the original pencils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terry Doyle

Terry Doyle

Posted
Posted
Its not. Take a nice landscape worth $500 by an unknown artist. Squat. Now prove its the work of a famous artist. Suddenly worth $100,000.

 

See what happened there?

 

Yeah, sure, $$$s came into the equation.

 

Judging by some of the multi-meeellionn dollar fine art paintings I see being highlighted on various posts around here, I'd say that if value wasn't a factor I wouldn't give the bulk of that stuff a second glance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
Its not. Take a nice landscape worth $500 by an unknown artist. Squat. Now prove its the work of a famous artist. Suddenly worth $100,000.

 

See what happened there?

 

Only OA snobs think that way. :baiting:

You mean like Charlie Adlard Walking Dead and "all other" Charlie Adlard? Hmm????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terry Doyle

Terry Doyle

Posted
Posted
Well that's what this thread is about Terry (shrug)

 

Not exactly my take on the thread, just responding to your point.

 

I started collecting original comic-book art in 1982 and over the course of about ten years had bought several hundred pages of EC art from Russ Cochran.

 

I was buying the art as Russ published components of his EC Library project (and Bill Gaines allowed him to release the art via auction).

 

I was attracted to the art (or images, as the subject header of this thread states), not buying out of nostalgia. EC was a new discovery to me, then, as I wasn't old enough to have read the comics when they first appeared,

 

Part of my collecting habits have been nostalgia-based, but quite a lot of the stuff I've bought over the years has leaned towards aesthetics.

 

I tend to please myself, not go with the herd mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terry Doyle

Terry Doyle

Posted
Posted
Super. Sincerely. But the discussion was what drives value

 

Good taste? (shrug)

 

Maybe if I add that my leaning towards image (over nostalgia) has bought me two houses (on the proceeds of sales over the past ten years) and has allowed me to retire early is more on topic for you? (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
Super. Sincerely. But the discussion was what drives value

 

Good taste? (shrug)

 

Maybe if I add that my leaning towards image (over nostalgia) has bought me two houses (on the proceeds of sales over the past ten years) and has allowed me to retire early is more on topic for you? (shrug)

Luck. As you yourself have admitted you did not buy with a mind toward ROI. The proof is in the repetition, will lightning strike twice on the CCG art you're presently enamored with? I think not...BUT I'm often wrong :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terry Doyle

Terry Doyle

Posted
Posted
Super. Sincerely. But the discussion was what drives value

 

Good taste? (shrug)

 

Maybe if I add that my leaning towards image (over nostalgia) has bought me two houses (on the proceeds of sales over the past ten years) and has allowed me to retire early is more on topic for you? (shrug)

 

Luck. As you yourself have admitted you did not buy with a mind toward ROI. The proof is in the repetition, will lightning strike twice on the CCG art you're presently enamored with? I think not...BUT I'm often wrong :)

 

Luck, sure. I've never bought art with a view to it becoming valuable years down the line (still don't)

 

Will the MTG art (which is only a small part of a wider range of interests) skyrocket in value at some future point? Perhaps not. Can't say I particularly care. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing