Spiderman 62 cover - get your bets in

[vodou]

But whenever I talk about price manipulation in the comic book world by the big dealers, I am labelled a conspiracy nut and told that price fixing cannot happen between dealers setting prices on books like new mutants 98 and batman adventures 12 because it would be impossible to fix prices in such a big free market

I don't hang out around the comic side of this place, but really there is disagreement on this 'dealers fixing' stuff from non-dealers? I'm surprised. Of course it's manipulated. The entirety of CGC population reports encourages just that. The handful of top grade examples of each and every book (even those published last month) creates a market within a market scenario. It's not just New Mutants 98, it's NM98 in 9.8 1 of 12 and none higher (fake numbers, let's move on). Whatever the distribution of those twelve examples is (and it's most likely dealers holding some/all of them to begin with), moving a few back and forth -in such a tiny market- creates a perception. And that perception cascades outward like waves rippling down though lower CGC grades and even to raw (aspirational 9.8s). All this because there are "only" twelve top examples and three have sold for 20% higher than the last each of the last three months (again, fake numbers, let's move on). Who the buyers and sellers were, even if all the same person does not matter (and can't be proven)...the point is the numbers don't lie (uh..yeah?) and everybody is so blinded by hopes of new found wealth or snapping up raw books that may grade out...that's all that matters. And the dealers can sell the top all the way down to all the newly 'interested' NM98 'collectors'

 

I don't even play in the graded comics pool, but if I did the above scenario would be hard to imagine as impossible. No?

[vodou]

Simplicity, though, definitely has as big impact on valuation for me. It's like a told a friend last week: "At the risk of sounding like a Philistine, all else being equal*, the more ink on the board, the more it's worth." It was over at Metropolis and Vincent showed me two covers by the same artist and asked me which I preferred. The one with more ink stood out more and I had no doubt that the market would value it higher. Sounds stupid, but it works more often than not.

This is all "in your opinion". Big time. I completely disagree. There is no "all other things being equal" (a philosophical conceit, for sure)...image is king. I'm not about to make the sweeping generalization you are. And now I'll blow your mind...not sure which I prefer, this one or ASM98. Simple vs. "busy". I'm just not sure. But it's definitely not a no-contest situation...for me

[Bronty]

Not sure what I think about all that, Id say my position is between you two, but it does raise the idea of the most valuable piece of comic art in the world being a black square

 

 

[vodou]

Not sure what I think about all that, Id say my position is between you two, but it does raise the idea of the most valuable piece of comic art in the world being a black square

 

And long as Jim Lee's pencils were under there...good to go!

[Bronty]

Hehehe

[Peter G]

But whenever I talk about price manipulation in the comic book world by the big dealers, I am labelled a conspiracy nut and told that price fixing cannot happen between dealers setting prices on books like new mutants 98 and batman adventures 12 because it would be impossible to fix prices in such a big free market

I don't hang out around the comic side of this place, but really there is disagreement on this 'dealers fixing' stuff from non-dealers? I'm surprised. Of course it's manipulated. The entirety of CGC population reports encourages just that. The handful of top grade examples of each and every book (even those published last month) creates a market within a market scenario. It's not just New Mutants 98, it's NM98 in 9.8 1 of 12 and none higher (fake numbers, let's move on). Whatever the distribution of those twelve examples is (and it's most likely dealers holding some/all of them to begin with), moving a few back and forth -in such a tiny market- creates a perception. And that perception cascades outward like waves rippling down though lower CGC grades and even to raw (aspirational 9.8s). All this because there are "only" twelve top examples and three have sold for 20% higher than the last each of the last three months (again, fake numbers, let's move on). Who the buyers and sellers were, even if all the same person does not matter (and can't be proven)...the point is the numbers don't lie (uh..yeah?) and everybody is so blinded by hopes of new found wealth or snapping up raw books that may grade out...that's all that matters. And the dealers can sell the top all the way down to all the newly 'interested' NM98 'collectors'

 

I don't even play in the graded comics pool, but if I did the above scenario would be hard to imagine as impossible. No?

 

I am in agreement with you but I have been called out by others as unreasonable to believe that dealers can fix prices as you describe. Just goes to show how on these boards forming a consensus on how the world operates is challenging.

[jjonahjameson1]

But whenever I talk about price manipulation in the comic book world by the big dealers, I am labelled a conspiracy nut and told that price fixing cannot happen between dealers setting prices on books like new mutants 98 and batman adventures 12 because it would be impossible to fix prices in such a big free market

I don't hang out around the comic side of this place, but really there is disagreement on this 'dealers fixing' stuff from non-dealers? I'm surprised. Of course it's manipulated. The entirety of CGC population reports encourages just that. The handful of top grade examples of each and every book (even those published last month) creates a market within a market scenario. It's not just New Mutants 98, it's NM98 in 9.8 1 of 12 and none higher (fake numbers, let's move on). Whatever the distribution of those twelve examples is (and it's most likely dealers holding some/all of them to begin with), moving a few back and forth -in such a tiny market- creates a perception. And that perception cascades outward like waves rippling down though lower CGC grades and even to raw (aspirational 9.8s). All this because there are "only" twelve top examples and three have sold for 20% higher than the last each of the last three months (again, fake numbers, let's move on). Who the buyers and sellers were, even if all the same person does not matter (and can't be proven)...the point is the numbers don't lie (uh..yeah?) and everybody is so blinded by hopes of new found wealth or snapping up raw books that may grade out...that's all that matters. And the dealers can sell the top all the way down to all the newly 'interested' NM98 'collectors'

 

I don't even play in the graded comics pool, but if I did the above scenario would be hard to imagine as impossible. No?

 

I am in agreement with you but I have been called out by others as unreasonable to believe that dealers can fix prices as you describe. Just goes to show how on these boards forming a consensus on how the world operates is challenging.

 

For those that called you out, direct them to their local library or amazon, ebay, etc. and have them read 'The Card'

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Card-Collectors-Historys-Baseball/dp/0061123935

 

 

Here's the sales blurb from Amazon:

 

"Only a few dozen T206 Wagners are known to still exist, having been released in limited numbers just after the turn of the twentieth century. Most, with their creases and stains, look like they've been around for nearly one hundred years. But one—The Card—appears to have defied the travails of time. Its sharp corners and still-crisp portrait make it the single-most famous—and most desired—baseball card on the planet, valued today at more than two million dollars. It has transformed a simple hobby into a billion-dollar industry that is at times as lawless as the Wild West. Everything about The Card, which has made men wealthy as well as poisoned lifelong relationships, is fraught with controversy—from its uncertain origins to the nagging possibility that it might not be exactly as it seems.

 

In this intriguing, eye-opening, and groundbreaking look at a uniquely American obsession, award-winning investigative reporters Michael O'Keeffe and Teri Thompson follow The Card's trail from a Florida flea market to the hands of the world's most prominent collectors. The Card sheds a fascinating new light on a world of counterfeiters, con men, and the people who profit from what used to be a pastime for kids."

 

[Bronty]

I think part of it is the use of the term "price fixing." That as far as I can recall the definition without resorting to google - is essentially collusion. Conspiracy.

 

Buying a piece at public sale to protect an artist's market is not price fixing. There is no collusion there. If burkey slaps a 100k bid on that spidey cover to protect the value of his pages - that's not price fixing that's just common sense

 

Its a free country and he can buy the page if he wants to. As long as the money he's shelling out is as green as anyone else's, and as long as there are no shenanigans, that's not a price fix. Is it maintaining values at a certain level - yes it is. But not by way of collusion, and that's an important distinction and the implication that people likely disagree with.

 

[Peter G]

I think part of it is the use of the term "price fixing." That as far as I can recall the definition without resorting to google - is essentially collusion. Conspiracy.

 

Buying a piece at public sale to protect an artist's market is not price fixing. There is no collusion there. If burkey slaps a 100k bid on that spidey cover to protect the value of his pages - that's not price fixing that's just common sense

 

Its a free country and he can buy the page if he wants to. As long as the money he's shelling out is as green as anyone else's, and as long as there are no shenanigans, that's not a price fix. Is it maintaining values at a certain level - yes it is. But not by way of collusion, and that's an important distinction and the implication that people likely disagree with.

 

I have no problem with Burkey doing that and do not even view that as "price fixing" to purchase something that is perceived as being below market. Burkey is no fool and recognizes a good opportunity when he sees it. I also have a hard time believing that dealers get together and collude to keep prices afloat. Only a fool would pay more for something then they believed it was worth.

 

On the other hand,

 

The comic book world with New Mutants 98 (1st Deadpool) and Batman Adventures 12 (1st Harleyquinn) I view differently. I feel that dealers all agree to set the price at levels for where they claim there is demand from the book. I question the prices due to the lack of scarcity but people keep buying them so I will admit I really don't know the market demand .. maybe that is the real price for these common books.

[artdealer]

Collusion, no.

Manipulation, yes.

MI

[Peter G]

I think part of it is the use of the term "price fixing." That as far as I can recall the definition without resorting to google - is essentially collusion. Conspiracy.

 

Buying a piece at public sale to protect an artist's market is not price fixing. There is no collusion there. If burkey slaps a 100k bid on that spidey cover to protect the value of his pages - that's not price fixing that's just common sense

 

Its a free country and he can buy the page if he wants to. As long as the money he's shelling out is as green as anyone else's, and as long as there are no shenanigans, that's not a price fix. Is it maintaining values at a certain level - yes it is. But not by way of collusion, and that's an important distinction and the implication that people likely disagree with.

 

Exactly, I can see a "secret cabal" for comic books much more easily as these dealers all do the comic book convention circuit and talk & prices are relatively not expensive for these common books. $1,000-$2,000.

 

But a "secret cabal" of OA dealers. I don't think these dealers are going to pay 100k-200k just to protect the market.Rather, self interest seems to be the more likely reason that dealers compete and bid up prices to a level that is a "minimum level".

[Bronty]

I think part of it is the use of the term "price fixing." That as far as I can recall the definition without resorting to google - is essentially collusion. Conspiracy.

 

Buying a piece at public sale to protect an artist's market is not price fixing. There is no collusion there. If burkey slaps a 100k bid on that spidey cover to protect the value of his pages - that's not price fixing that's just common sense

 

Its a free country and he can buy the page if he wants to. As long as the money he's shelling out is as green as anyone else's, and as long as there are no shenanigans, that's not a price fix. Is it maintaining values at a certain level - yes it is. But not by way of collusion, and that's an important distinction and the implication that people likely disagree with.

 

Exactly, I can see a "secret cabal" for comic books much more easily as these dealers all do the comic book convention circuit and talk & prices are relatively not expensive for these common books. $1,000-$2,000.

 

But a "secret cabal" of OA dealers. I don't think these dealers are going to pay 100k-200k just to protect the market.Rather, self interest seems to be the more likely reason that dealers compete and bid up prices to a level that is a "minimum level".

 

I actually think that's backwards.

 

The bigger the group, the harder it is to control the members and the number of people involved is smaller in OA.

 

A group of two colluding? Doable.

 

A group of three? still doable but kind of a PITA.

 

A group of four? Straining at the seams. Differing objectives are being weighed against the benefits.

 

A group of five? In all likelihood, someone has thoughts of acting outside the group mandate because they don't feel they are being well served. Might not be able to keep it together.

 

A group of six? Forget it.

 

A group of 200,000 owners of new mutants 98? A non-starter.

 

 

 

 

[Bronty]

Collusion, no.

Manipulation, yes.

MI

 

That would be my guess.

[suspense39]

Not sure what I think about all that, Id say my position is between you two, but it does raise the idea of the most valuable piece of comic art in the world being a black square

 

 

I pretty sure you're thinking of Malevich, that should be posted in the fine art forum

[Bronty]

Not sure what I think about all that, Id say my position is between you two, but it does raise the idea of the most valuable piece of comic art in the world being a black square

 

 

I pretty sure you're thinking of Malevich, that should be posted in the fine art forum

 

You gave me something fun to google, thanks

[suspense39]

Ha!

[delekkerste]

Simplicity, though, definitely has as big impact on valuation for me. It's like a told a friend last week: "At the risk of sounding like a Philistine, all else being equal*, the more ink on the board, the more it's worth." It was over at Metropolis and Vincent showed me two covers by the same artist and asked me which I preferred. The one with more ink stood out more and I had no doubt that the market would value it higher. Sounds stupid, but it works more often than not.

This is all "in your opinion". Big time. I completely disagree. There is no "all other things being equal" (a philosophical conceit, for sure)...image is king. I'm not about to make the sweeping generalization you are. And now I'll blow your mind...not sure which I prefer, this one or ASM98. Simple vs. "busy". I'm just not sure. But it's definitely not a no-contest situation...for me

 

I thought it was clear that I was speaking in generalizations, both about what constitutes "all other things being equal" and the correlation of ink to appeal. Like I said, though, the rule of thumb works more than it doesn't. "Gee, this Jim Lee/Scott Williams cover would be worth so much more if there were no backgrounds" - said no one, ever.

 

Obviously not everyone is going to feel the same, but sparse/lack of background and/or lack of detail are two of numerous non condition-related items that have the potential to negatively impact the appeal and/or value of a cover (along with characters having their back turned and/or face hidden or obscured; main characters that are very small and are not the focal point; characters that out of costume; characters beating whupped by a villain*, etc.) Like I said, though, not everyone is going to feel the same all the time and there are certainly exceptions to the rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Something that Scott W. himself mentioned to me a while ago - though there are exceptions which prove the rule, of course, like Batman #244.

[stinkininkin]

Simplicity, though, definitely has as big impact on valuation for me. It's like a told a friend last week: "At the risk of sounding like a Philistine, all else being equal*, the more ink on the board, the more it's worth." It was over at Metropolis and Vincent showed me two covers by the same artist and asked me which I preferred. The one with more ink stood out more and I had no doubt that the market would value it higher. Sounds stupid, but it works more often than not.

This is all "in your opinion". Big time. I completely disagree. There is no "all other things being equal" (a philosophical conceit, for sure)...image is king. I'm not about to make the sweeping generalization you are. And now I'll blow your mind...not sure which I prefer, this one or ASM98. Simple vs. "busy". I'm just not sure. But it's definitely not a no-contest situation...for me

 

I thought it was clear that I was speaking in generalizations, both about what constitutes "all other things being equal" and the correlation of ink to appeal. Like I said, though, the rule of thumb works more than it doesn't. "Gee, this Jim Lee/Scott Williams cover would be worth so much more if there were no backgrounds" - said no one, ever.

 

Obviously not everyone is going to feel the same, but sparse/lack of background and/or lack of detail are two of numerous non condition-related items that have the potential to negatively impact the appeal and/or value of a cover (along with characters having their back turned and/or face hidden or obscured; main characters that are very small and are not the focal point; characters that out of costume; characters beating whupped by a villain*, etc.) Like I said, though, not everyone is going to feel the same all the time and there are certainly exceptions to the rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Something that Scott W. himself mentioned to me a while ago - though there are exceptions which prove the rule, of course, like Batman #244.

 

 

 

I like how you changed the argument there Gene! See the bold quote--I don't think anyone ever said that a piece of art would be worth more if it had less backgrounds or was simpler! The argument, (at least the one I was making) was that a piece should not necessarily be valued less due to a simpler, limited detailed and/or background-less approach. I think either approach (simple or detailed) is equally valid and can be equally effective. I have examples of both in my collection, from the insanely detailed Wrightson and Charest examples to the deceptively simple Frank Miller approach. Both options can and do work...in the hands of a master.

 

Scott

 

[glendgold]

http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=410796

 

The most valuable piece of comic art in the world.

[suspense39]

http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=410796

 

The most valuable piece of comic art in the world.

 

Haha! I almost posted that! I'm glad you did it.