Value: Image vs Nostalgia?

[drdroom]

McKay vs Schoultz? Bad example, both are masters. McKay vs. Cockrum X-men is more to the point. The fact that other Cockrum pages are cheap demonstrates that the market is perfectly lucid about what it is buying. So McKay has seemingly inherent value and the X pages have contextual/nostalgic value. Long run, McKay. But it might be a long long run with the X-franchise continually renewing.

[vodou]

Super. Sincerely. But the discussion was what drives value

 

Good taste?

 

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?

 

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.

What cashed you so far has been the nostalgia of others. And their expectation of cashing out in a similar fashion to a similarly-minded group down the road. If it happens again, it will be for the same reason (most likely). That's the point of the topic. Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

[Terry Doyle]

Super. Sincerely. But the discussion was what drives value

 

Good taste?

 

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?

 

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.

What cashed you so far has been the nostalgia of others. And their expectation of cashing out in a similar fashion to a similarly-minded group down the road. If it happens again, it will be for the same reason (most likely). That's the point of the topic. Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

 

I've sold a lot of art to collectors who (like me) had no nostalgic connection to the art.

[Bronty]

Again, nostalgia isn't really the right word. Context. Your art had it (even when you purchased it).

 

Would those same buyers of yours have paid the same prices for unknown nice landscapes by unknown artists? Never. Even those that think they are buying only for image are buying with contextual concerns. Specifically, for a lot of comic collectors, the artists they know are the ones in overstreet. Outside comics they won't even know the names.

 

They *certainly* wouldn't pay as much for the same image unpublished vs the published covers you had. So it's not about image is it?

[vodou]

Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

I've sold a lot of art to collectors who (like me) had no nostalgic connection to the art.

Okay you've got my attention, care to share examples? My experience is what you're talking about is not a common occurrence. Or let me rephrase, not common in the over $1k market, lots of "it's cool, I'll take it" action in the three figures!

[vodou]

Again, nostalgia isn't really the right word. Context. Your art had it (even when you purchased it).

Really good point of distinction. The essential divide (of interest, of prices) is "published vs. unpublished". That's all about context, all day long.

[Bronty]

Specifically, for a lot of comic collectors, the artists they know are the ones in overstreet. Outside comics they won't even know the names.

 

 

Hopefully this doesn't come across the wrong way, I include myself in this ; aplenty if areas I don't know about.

[Terry Doyle]

Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

I've sold a lot of art to collectors who (like me) had no nostalgic connection to the art.

Okay you've got my attention, care to share examples? My experience is what you're talking about is not a common occurrence. Or let me rephrase, not common in the over $1k market, lots of "it's cool, I'll take it" action in the three figures!

 

Sold a lot of EC art (top price $50,000 for a single piece) to collectors younger than me . . . Frank Hampson (Dan Dare pages averaging about $4,000 a page) . . . same with Frank Bellamy pages (latter two British artists). Lots of other stuff, but those are some examples for you. Probably sold somewhere in the region of $500,000 worth of art in the last ten years. Some of it to nostalgia-based collectors, yes, but a lot of it not

[vodou]

Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

I've sold a lot of art to collectors who (like me) had no nostalgic connection to the art.

Okay you've got my attention, care to share examples? My experience is what you're talking about is not a common occurrence. Or let me rephrase, not common in the over $1k market, lots of "it's cool, I'll take it" action in the three figures!

 

Sold a lot of EC art (top price $50,000 for a single piece) to collectors younger than me . . . Frank Hampson (Dan Dare pages averaging about $4,000 a page) . . . same with Frank Bellamy pages (latter two British artists). Lots of other stuff, but those are some examples for you. Probably sold somewhere in the region of $500,000 worth of art in the last ten years. Some of it to nostalgia-based collectors, yes, but a lot of it not

So it's all comic art that is highly regarded and heavily reprinted. Sounds to me like you owe a pretty big debt to nostalgia or context, take your pick...differentiating is semantics.

[Terry Doyle]

Again, nostalgia isn't really the right word. Context. Your art had it (even when you purchased it).

 

Would those same buyers of yours have paid the same prices for unknown nice landscapes by unknown artists?

 

Well, the title of this thread did include the word, nostalgia, but I get your point.

 

Not sure how landscape paintings fit into a comic-book OA thread, but no doubt you have your own school of thought.

[Bronty]

Terry, if I still have to explain it to you, then I'm tapping out

[Terry Doyle]

Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

I've sold a lot of art to collectors who (like me) had no nostalgic connection to the art.

Okay you've got my attention, care to share examples? My experience is what you're talking about is not a common occurrence. Or let me rephrase, not common in the over $1k market, lots of "it's cool, I'll take it" action in the three figures!

 

Sold a lot of EC art (top price $50,000 for a single piece) to collectors younger than me . . . Frank Hampson (Dan Dare pages averaging about $4,000 a page) . . . same with Frank Bellamy pages (latter two British artists). Lots of other stuff, but those are some examples for you. Probably sold somewhere in the region of $500,000 worth of art in the last ten years. Some of it to nostalgia-based collectors, yes, but a lot of it not

So it's all comic art that is highly regarded and heavily reprinted. Sounds to me like you owe a pretty big debt to nostalgia or context, .

 

[Terry Doyle]

Terry, if I still have to explain it to you, then I'm tapping out

 

No worries, I'm off to bed, goodnight!

[r100comics]

 

I collect art 100% for nostalgia.

 

I am looking for the pages or panels that made an impression on me as a kid and will pass on pages from the same book that don't tick that box.

 

The downside is I have no idea if others will feel the same if I ever come to sell whereas if I collected for image I may not have that problem.

 

Having said that, there must be a reason a page has stuck with me over the years......

 

 

[Eric Seffinga]

K, so a few thoughts from the peanut gallery (me)...

 

1.) I am seeing your points and you guys are simply talking past each other.

 

2. The entire premise of the question is a farce. Or at best, misguided when phrased as a question.

 

To me, it is abundantly clear that the way in which the majority function within these abstract concepts, nostalgia trumps image. That said, it does not negate it.

 

But it is all shades of gray anyway.

Image = quality.

Nostalgia = awareness.

Image = content.

Nostalgia= sentimentality.

 

These vague words could go a dozen ways each and change the inflection of the arguments, but not ultimately the outcomes.

 

The Mona Lisa always gets trotted out in art debates, and it is a perfect example here. I've mentioned this before, but as a work of art it was completely irrelevant to the public until it was stolen by a janitor, and made all the newspapers world wide. After that its reputation rose and rose, due in no small part to its infamy. And as usual the artistic scholars came late to the party, and more and more was written of its cultural significance, about the smile, etc and so on.

 

It's the same argument that is driving the action1 comic vs cover oa discussion in the other thread. And the thing that so many people here discuss and agonize over mentally when bidding, and in the various hypothetical pricing threads all the time. Where on the spectrum do pieces land?

 

So symantically the arguments vary, but at their core the historical result is clear. It's that Mona Lisa effect all over again and again. McSpidey is the Mona Lisa. There, I said it.

 

And it doesn't change my opinion of either one of those pieces. Their ultimate visual qualities remain the same before and after billions of people were aware of them. I can appreciate the amazing characteristics of a piece of art that everyone loves, and I can appreciate the characteristics of a piece of art that only I know about in equal measure. But I am aware of the valuation effect that the former has over the latter.

 

So...

[vodou]

But I am aware of the valuation effect that the former has over the latter.

 

So...

Correct. And valuation doesn't have a damned thing to do with "goodness" of art

[Eric Seffinga]

Exactly.

[Bronty]

Mc spidey is the Mona Lisa

 

So well put Eric!

[r100comics]

Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

I've sold a lot of art to collectors who (like me) had no nostalgic connection to the art.

Okay you've got my attention, care to share examples? My experience is what you're talking about is not a common occurrence. Or let me rephrase, not common in the over $1k market, lots of "it's cool, I'll take it" action in the three figures!

 

Sold a lot of EC art (top price $50,000 for a single piece) to collectors younger than me . . . Frank Hampson (Dan Dare pages averaging about $4,000 a page) . . . same with Frank Bellamy pages (latter two British artists). Lots of other stuff, but those are some examples for you. Probably sold somewhere in the region of $500,000 worth of art in the last ten years. Some of it to nostalgia-based collectors, yes, but a lot of it not

 

Sounds like you bought very astutely but I'm surprised you were able to buy 2 houses and retire on £330k-odd ?

 

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Your personal situation while interesting hasn't added anything new to the conversation.

I've sold a lot of art to collectors who (like me) had no nostalgic connection to the art.

Okay you've got my attention, care to share examples? My experience is what you're talking about is not a common occurrence. Or let me rephrase, not common in the over $1k market, lots of "it's cool, I'll take it" action in the three figures!

 

Sold a lot of EC art (top price $50,000 for a single piece) to collectors younger than me . . . Frank Hampson (Dan Dare pages averaging about $4,000 a page) . . . same with Frank Bellamy pages (latter two British artists). Lots of other stuff, but those are some examples for you. Probably sold somewhere in the region of $500,000 worth of art in the last ten years. Some of it to nostalgia-based collectors, yes, but a lot of it not

 

Sounds like you bought very astutely but I'm surprised you were able to buy 2 houses and retire on £330k-odd ?

 

I don't live in London. Lucky to buy a shoe-box there, I would imagine.

 

Two houses? A sweeping generalization on my behalf (I don't always see the need to go the route of detailed explanation) . . . the mechanics work differently to what you're perhaps thinking.

 

Art sales paid the outstanding mortgage off on one house . . . and later on paid for a move to a bigger place in a different area (combining proceeds of the sales from house # 1, together with art sales funding which allowed me to remain mortgage free).

 

Seven years away from my official retirement age, at which point various pensions kick-in. Proceeds from sales earlier this year will bridge the gap nicely (with no dip in my standard of living) and I still retain quite a lot of nice art I can sell at some future point if need be.