New podcast/video from Felix Comic Art (UPDATED 1/3/17!) 6 6

[Nexus]

haters gonna hate

 

 

 

Nice art, nice frame job.

 

And may as well take this chance to explain that I brought up this cover with Gene on the podcast as it was a public sale from a dealer's website that we had recently discussed. No judgment on buyer or seller, it was simply a convenient data point.

 

We also talk about the DKR splash (again!) and the ratchet effect that had on values across the board, and why these two examples are thus linked.

 

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not. But I also don't believe that for the vast majority of art that's bought at today's prices, INCLUDING art I own. So if it makes anyone feel better, feel free to check out my gallery. There are several pieces that were purchased at auction in recent years, and thus the numbers are public. Substitute those for MAN-THING as examples of art that is unlikely to double in value in 10 years, or quadruple in 20. I don't mind...I didn't buy the art for investment purposes.

 

And guess what? Neither did Joe. I found out after I talked to Gene that Joe was the buyer. So I had a chat with Joe before the podcast was released. He explained that he acquired this cover because he liked it. That's it. And that's really all the justification anyone needs.

 

So what was the point of all this? Well, there are those who have been touting comic art as an investment, even a fool-proof investment. And it's an easy sell because the market has only gone one way-- up! But I'm skeptical that this will remain a permanent condition and explain why. You can consider those reasons or not, it's simply another viewpoint. Note that I don't rule anything out, either...I simply ask questions that I feel are worth asking.

 

Thanks to Joe for his graciousness.

[Nexus]

Its amazing how people seem to criticize art that they DON'T OWN.......and don't "understand"

 

(from the podcast....)

 

As we all know art is SUBJECTIVE....... We all like what we like..and in general this was discussed in the podcast..... BUT....

 

This Brunner cover above is arguably 1 of the BEST Brunner drawn covers to be had in recent years (artistically)...

One of the few covers i've ever seen from Marvel that was drawn on CRAFTINT board for an amazing gray tone effect!

 

But this great cover (which I sold to a good friend on this board recently) was discussed about on the podcast as being just another example of art priced too high, and how prices have gotten out of hand in the hobby....

 

Maybe we should define the term "EXPERT" when discussing art in our hobby which many people not in the know and listening to this podcast may take as gospel.

 

Frankly...the host could have been much better served to have picked "50-75" other covers to discuss in the podcast on dealers racks at San Diego that were priced 2...even 3 TIMES retail values if he really wants to discuss the art market and whats WRONG in the hobby.......Just walk around a little more and take a few notes to be a little more prepared to discuss the market, versus choosing this one if you truly want to have a fair debate on this subject of over valued art.

 

I think this will make for better podcasts in the future.

 

Just my 2 cents....I listened to the podcast in full..........overall It was a decent listen and something that is good for the hobby.

 

First off, no one's claiming to be an "expert". The podcasts are basically BS sessions amongst friends and fellow OA enthusiasts. Take any of it for what it's worth.

 

But is Craftint board now a major selling point for Marvel covers? I'll admit that's a new one for me.

 

Feel free to share some of the 50-75 covers from SDCC that you believe were 2-3X FMV.

 

Thanks for giving the podcast a listen, though. As anyone who's done it will attest, there's nothing canned, nothing rehearsed, and really, there's not even anything prepared. We don't edit, either. We simply sit down and talk. I hope for as authentic a conversation as possible. I'm sorry you couldn't handle that before when I invited you on, but if it's something you'd be up for now, the door's still open.

 

 

[Brian Peck]

Another entertaining podcast. The investment perspective was interesting but for me its mostly nostalgia for me when I buy art. Even though alot of the art I like has been increasing alot in price I am not someone who will move towards modern art. While its nice its the story I like for interior art and without dialog almost all of the modern interior comic art turns off.

I do agree SDCC has changes in regards to the hunt for artwork. It used to be getting to the dealers early to grab the new stuff but Andy is right there is such a variety of art at SDCC outside of the usual comic art dealers. I always find something interesting I wasn't expecting to find at SDCC.

One thing I was disappointed on with the podcast I wanted more of Gene 1.0. Most of the art talked about in many of the podcasts has been mainstream superhero art. Gene was one of the big collectors of Warren art specially Vampirella. Warren art has always been relegated to the corners of comic art collecting.

[vodou]

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not.

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!) For serious students of the subject there is further a material difference between speculation and investment. Probably good enough to use the hobby familiar terms flipper vs. keeper.

 

But getting back to the subjective, for some of us a double in ten years, even five years is such a yawner, the piece has to be a keeper because there would be no rational financial excuse to hold such dead inventory for so long for so little return. The only valid hobby reason (outside of "I love it!") would be strategic in the sense that what you didn't buy went up less (or even down) vs. what you did buy (that you didn't "love"). This gives you leverage to move into the stuff you prefer later, for less. Like swapping mainstream superhero art (Byrne X-Men?) out now for Warren (flopping the podcast example). You'd get what, 5:1, 10:1 (maybe??) Warren:ByrneXMen today vs. ten, fifteen years ago? So that's one way it can work for a collector first (and "investor" second) that the spreadsheet guys (Wall St. art funds) would have a lot of difficulty getting to, primarily because the payoff is...more art (that you really always wanted) not ROI $$ (though there would still be capital gains to be paid when that Byrne/et al was sold).

 

In my case, like many of us, I know (and always knew even way back) that the art everybody wanted at my purchase point wouldn't outperform the art few wanted. Just the way it works, the higher the demand, the higher the price you pay already has that baked in leaving less on the table for when you sell. That's why it's so easy to "buy only what you like" and then "if it doesn't go up or even goes down at least you're stuck with something you don't mind seeing every day". This isn't an accident of life, it's a matter of how close you were to the top-ticker on the day you bought. Sometimes this is measured in days or months, sometimes decades as the steam is slowly let out creating room (again) for gains to be made on bounces.

 

Mike Burkey's biggest claim to fame (aside from being The Hobby Nice Guy) is he correctly bought out of favor Romita ASM instead of hot Ditko ASM in the late 80s and early 90s. And we know how that worked out, applying the stuff I wrote above. I did the same for the art/artists I enjoy, though later and likely not to the same eventual reward that Mike has enjoyed (of this I'm quite certain). But how much "gain" does one need? Especially for the stuff you happen to "love" too? Mike's broad 10,000% ROI (or whatever, but it's A Lot) is greater than my 2,000% (let's say) but in both cases...blows everything else away that's out there and available to the general public the last 30 years. (Except AAPL and MSFT near IPO, maybe?) I expected to beat bank rates, and otherwise be diversifying outside Wall St, can't really take much credit for the rest of those gains, mostly a matter of having the will to act at the right time (so mostly LUCK!) But it worked, and worked in spades. Mike's been picking up Ditko ASM here and there for himself, surely funded with the proceeds of letting some Romita ASM go, and I've done some of the same - flipping out the "out of favor" I bought previously that went up a lot faster than the "perma in favor", and using the proceeds to vastly enhance my personal NFS collection (and at a time where I still have many years to enjoy it!)

 

The stuff I flip (not comic art, that's a dead asset class - all keepers - at today's prices in my book)...a double less frequently than annually is a loser. Not worth my speculation or time, too many other great opportunities vying for my money. So over ten years...ugh. But that double, the curve also flattens really quick, all the fat gain is in the first year of ownership (buy right and strike to sell while the iron is still hot) and then it's like 5-10% annualized (maybe) from that point on, and still highly illiquid (unless fire-saled) etc, all the usual downsides to niche collectibles. So you get it and then get out to get the meat of the gain. It's not like a double every year, so just buy 'n hold Rumpelstiltskin and be filthy rich blah blah when you wake up. That's what the podcast was trying to explain, I'm sure everybody got it, that you can't double every five, ten years in perpetuity. For that to happen, even in the short term there has to be somebody else willing to take over that asset risk from you, and likely only because they have been doing something (wage earnings or ROI) at an even greater rate of return (than the art in question)! So what's been beating mainstream superhero comic art's ROI - uh Silicon Valley IPO cashouts and Eastern oligarchical takeovers of formerly state owned assets. And...? Right. So that's where the reality check is. These are not permanent scenarios that one can sell into at any time. There is a rather finite supply of "I've been doing much better than you" folks to sell to, hardly perpetual (and assuming they even give a about comic art to begin with). Only the government can publish infinite growth models while keeping a straight face

 

But I also don't believe that for the vast majority of art that's bought at today's prices, INCLUDING art I own.

What about art you sell (rep)? (Not being snarky, just completing the circle.)

[Peter G]

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not.

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!) For serious students of the subject there is further a material difference between speculation and investment. Probably good enough to use the hobby familiar terms flipper vs. keeper.

 

But getting back to the subjective, for some of us a double in ten years, even five years is such a yawner, the piece has to be a keeper because there would be no rational financial excuse to hold such dead inventory for so long for so little return. The only valid hobby reason (outside of "I love it!") would be strategic in the sense that what you didn't buy went up less (or even down) vs. what you did buy (that you didn't "love"). This gives you leverage to move into the stuff you prefer later, for less. Like swapping mainstream superhero art (Byrne X-Men?) out now for Warren (flopping the podcast example). You'd get what, 5:1, 10:1 (maybe??) Warren:ByrneXMen today vs. ten, fifteen years ago? So that's one way it can work for a collector first (and "investor" second) that the spreadsheet guys (Wall St. art funds) would have a lot of difficulty getting to, primarily because the payoff is...more art (that you really always wanted) not ROI $$ (though there would still be capital gains to be paid when that Byrne/et al was sold).

 

In my case, like many of us, I know (and always knew even way back) that the art everybody wanted at my purchase point wouldn't outperform the art few wanted. Just the way it works, the higher the demand, the higher the price you pay already has that baked in leaving less on the table for when you sell. That's why it's so easy to "buy only what you like" and then "if it doesn't go up or even goes down at least you're stuck with something you don't mind seeing every day". This isn't an accident of life, it's a matter of how close you were to the top-ticker on the day you bought. Sometimes this is measured in days or months, sometimes decades as the steam is slowly let out creating room (again) for gains to be made on bounces.

 

Mike Burkey's biggest claim to fame (aside from being The Hobby Nice Guy) is he correctly bought out of favor Romita ASM instead of hot Ditko ASM in the late 80s and early 90s. And we know how that worked out, applying the stuff I wrote above. I did the same for the art/artists I enjoy, though later and likely not to the same eventual reward that Mike has enjoyed (of this I'm quite certain). But how much "gain" does one need? Especially for the stuff you happen to "love" too? Mike's broad 10,000% ROI (or whatever, but it's A Lot) is greater than my 2,000% (let's say) but in both cases...blows everything else away that's out there and available to the general public the last 30 years. (Except AAPL and MSFT near IPO, maybe?) I expected to beat bank rates, and otherwise be diversifying outside Wall St, can't really take much credit for the rest of those gains, mostly a matter of having the will to act at the right time (so mostly LUCK!) But it worked, and worked in spades. Mike's been picking up Ditko ASM here and there for himself, surely funded with the proceeds of letting some Romita ASM go, and I've done some of the same - flipping out the "out of favor" I bought previously that went up a lot faster than the "perma in favor", and using the proceeds to vastly enhance my personal NFS collection (and at a time where I still have many years to enjoy it!)

 

The stuff I flip (not comic art, that's a dead asset class - all keepers - at today's prices in my book)...a double less frequently than annually is a loser. Not worth my speculation or time, too many other great opportunities vying for my money. So over ten years...ugh. But that double, the curve also flattens really quick, all the fat gain is in the first year of ownership (buy right and strike to sell while the iron is still hot) and then it's like 5-10% annualized (maybe) from that point on, and still highly illiquid (unless fire-saled) etc, all the usual downsides to niche collectibles. So you get it and then get out to get the meat of the gain. It's not like a double every year, so just buy 'n hold Rumpelstiltskin and be filthy rich blah blah when you wake up. That's what the podcast was trying to explain, I'm sure everybody got it, that you can't double every five, ten years in perpetuity. For that to happen, even in the short term there has to be somebody else willing to take over that asset risk from you, and likely only because they have been doing something (wage earnings or ROI) at an even greater rate of return (than the art in question)! So what's been beating mainstream superhero comic art's ROI - uh Silicon Valley IPO cashouts and Eastern oligarchical takeovers of formerly state owned assets. And...? Right. So that's where the reality check is. These are not permanent scenarios that one can sell into at any time. There is a rather finite supply of "I've been doing much better than you" folks to sell to, hardly perpetual (and assuming they even give a about comic art to begin with). Only the government can publish infinite growth models while keeping a straight face

 

But I also don't believe that for the vast majority of art that's bought at today's prices, INCLUDING art I own.

What about art you sell (rep)? (Not being snarky, just completing the circle.)

 

Great analysis

 

My admittedly limited contribution is that any analysis of comic OA must also account for the effects of inflation and preserving "wealth" with comic OA as a hedge (like gold and silver). Blue chip pieces like Swamp Thing 1 cover (auction is later today, so price to be determined) will always seriously outperform a Man Thing cover which is derivative and less of an inflation hedge especially if liquidity in the OA market becomes an issue, which it probably will at some point.

 

Buy the best of the best . . . always

 

again my that playing "moneyball" only works in a bull market

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

haters gonna hate

 

 

Nice cover, but I'm a little worried about the construction worker's knee-cap - which is precariously perched atop the vehicle's tracks. Hopefully, my concerns are unfounded and it's a stationary bulldozer . . .

[Doc Joe]

Now...

 

Great analysis

 

My admittedly limited contribution is that any analysis of comic OA must also account for the effects of inflation and preserving "wealth" with comic OA as a hedge (like gold and silver). Blue chip pieces like Swamp Thing 1 cover (auction is later today, so price to be determined) will always seriously outperform a Man Thing cover which is derivative and less of an inflation hedge especially if liquidity in the OA market becomes an issue, which it probably will at some point.

 

Buy the best of the best . . . always

 

again my that playing "moneyball" only works in a bull market

 

 

Why would you compare Swamp Thing 1 cover to a Fear Cover?? Its like saying you should just get the Action 1 on HA, dont worry about anything else...

 

I dont always spend 140K+ on OA but when I do its on multiple pieces..

 

Its nice if you can just own 3 piece all of which are the height of art good taste; but remember there is no common theme as to what is good taste, some people die for modern art others for golden age etc....I have ZERO and I mean 0 interest in owning a Ditko piece or any of that early Kirby work. Shock Horror!...I buy what I like at a price that I can afford and then it goes on my wall for me to enjoy...

 

[The Blot]

I've really enjoyed the last few podcasts and the spirited conversation about OA here on the boards! It's great hearing other collectors talk about OA and how they view the hobby/business because I don't really know anyone else in real life that collects comic art.

 

Then again, I don't know if you'd really say I'm a collector. I've been buying OA sporadically for over ten years on a very small budget. It's definitely picked up in the past few years though. On this scale, I look for value but what's most important is the artists involved and the characters. I'd never buy a page I wouldn't want to either put on my wall or own forever. Definitely more of a buyer from the heart than from a business perspective.

[Peter G]

Now...

 

Great analysis

 

My admittedly limited contribution is that any analysis of comic OA must also account for the effects of inflation and preserving "wealth" with comic OA as a hedge (like gold and silver). Blue chip pieces like Swamp Thing 1 cover (auction is later today, so price to be determined) will always seriously outperform a Man Thing cover which is derivative and less of an inflation hedge especially if liquidity in the OA market becomes an issue, which it probably will at some point.

 

Buy the best of the best . . . always

 

again my that playing "moneyball" only works in a bull market

 

 

Why would you compare Swamp Thing 1 cover to a Fear Cover?? Its like saying you should just get the Action 1 on HA, dont worry about anything else...

 

I dont always spend 140K+ on OA but when I do its on multiple pieces..

 

Its nice if you can just own 3 piece all of which are the height of art good taste; but remember there is no common theme as to what is good taste, some people die for modern art others for golden age etc....I have ZERO and I mean 0 interest in owning a Ditko piece or any of that early Kirby work. Shock Horror!...I buy what I like at a price that I can afford and then it goes on my wall for me to enjoy...

 

I thought we were talking about prices and these are 2 "similar comps". No

 

Man thing is a poor mans swamp thing in my mind. You can disagree. That's ok.

 

Vodous "moneyball" way of playing the oa market will catch up in the long run when the music eventually stops

 

But as chuck prince says, when the music is playing, you gotta get up and dance

 

 

[vodou]

vodous "moneyball" way of playing the oa market will catch up in the long run when the music eventually stops

Yes, totally agree.

 

I think it's intuitive when actively buying and selling in volume (as I always am) to peel off the "commons" and keep the "stars", be it baseball cards, comic books, even original art. In this way, if for no other reason you tend to take some of your profit in the form of a significantly better collection over time. You should (must) respect the value difference even if the market doesn't (or doesn't fully) in price terms because that new day could come any day when the whole thing gets turned on end, and that's when you want to have your closets stuffed to the gills with mostly "all-stars". But even so blue chip comic art (any art for that matter) is not my go-to for real crisis liquidity, it's a far cry from the right stuff...art is just a whole lot of fun for now

[Nexus]

 

Man thing is a poor mans swamp thing in my mind. You can disagree. That's ok.

 

I would say that to the world at large, there is little, if any, difference between Man-Thing and Swamp Thing. Same Thing to them.

[Nexus]

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not.

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!)

 

So, in your opinion, will vintage Man-Thing, Swamp Thing, and the like bought at today's prices end up as good investments? If we are only considering ROI?

 

(Just so people don't accuse of my of picking on art I don't own, I collect Swamp Thing!)

 

But I also don't believe that for the vast majority of art that's bought at today's prices, INCLUDING art I own.

What about art you sell (rep)? (Not being snarky, just completing the circle.)

 

You must have missed it, because I specifically said that I never tell people that any of the art I sell will go up. I tell them to treat it like any other luxury item. For that matter, I've said it before here, too! No snark about this, either...just consistency;)

[Marwai]

I would agree. When Man-Thing shows up in a post credits scene and DC is still scuffling to make their main heroes work on film, we'll start seeing Star-Lord prices for these things at auction.

[Bronty]

I'm a little confused as to what the general public's perception of man thing v swamp thing has to do with it... I think its pretty clear the hobby prefers swamp thing and I think its pretty clear that the man thing cover did well because its really pretty!

[vodou]

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not.

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!)

So, in your opinion, will vintage Man-Thing, Swamp Thing, and the like bought at today's prices end up as good investments? If we are only considering ROI?

 

(Just so people don't accuse of my of picking on art I don't own, I collect Swamp Thing!)

No. If I'm not doubling my money annualized, terrible investment (as that is my opportunity cost). Answered that one before you even asked

The stuff I flip (not comic art, that's a dead asset class - all keepers - at today's prices in my book)...a double less frequently than annually is a loser.

And I collect Swamp Thing too, as a luxury good.

[comix4fun]

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not.

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!)

So, in your opinion, will vintage Man-Thing, Swamp Thing, and the like bought at today's prices end up as good investments? If we are only considering ROI?

 

(Just so people don't accuse of my of picking on art I don't own, I collect Swamp Thing!)

No. If I'm not doubling my money annualized, terrible investment (as that is my opportunity cost). Answered that one before you even asked

 

 

Doubled Annually....that means every $100 you put in 10 years ago is now $102,400.

 

Is there a place where I can buy your info-tapes?

[delekkerste]

Doubled Annually....that means every $100 you put in 10 years ago is now $102,400.

 

Is there a place where I can buy your info-tapes?

 

Seriously...where do I sign up?

[delekkerste]

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!) For serious students of the subject there is further a material difference between speculation and investment. Probably good enough to use the hobby familiar terms flipper vs. keeper.

 

But getting back to the subjective, for some of us a double in ten years, even five years is such a yawner, the piece has to be a keeper because there would be no rational financial excuse to hold such dead inventory for so long for so little return.

 

The stuff I flip (not comic art, that's a dead asset class - all keepers - at today's prices in my book)...a double less frequently than annually is a loser. Not worth my speculation or time, too many other great opportunities vying for my money. So over ten years...ugh.

 

Just discussing the above statements further in-depth would make for a FASCINATING Felix Comic Art podcast. Come on you guys - MAKE IT HAPPEN.

[vodou]

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not.

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!)

So, in your opinion, will vintage Man-Thing, Swamp Thing, and the like bought at today's prices end up as good investments? If we are only considering ROI?

 

(Just so people don't accuse of my of picking on art I don't own, I collect Swamp Thing!)

No. If I'm not doubling my money annualized, terrible investment (as that is my opportunity cost). Answered that one before you even asked

 

 

Doubled Annually....that means every $100 you put in 10 years ago is now $102,400.

 

Is there a place where I can buy your info-tapes?

Chris I know you're famous for the hit-n-run one-liners, but I'll go out on a limb here and assume you actually care about a serious answer vs. just taking potshots to impress...

 

When I'm considering whether to "invest" (and I'd put speculatively in front of it) in something, the question I ask myself is "can I double this in 12 months or less?" If the answer is "no", I move on. A "yes" and that's what I do. But since this is full-time occupationally, I'm pulling all my liquidity out for living expenses (and luxuries like comic art!) So that $100 that becomes $200 in a year or less is not then rolled right back to create a new $400 from $200. And it for sure (as I wrote before) isn't just sitting there doubling every year for ten years to $100k. Dude...c'mon that would fly in the face of the very same perpetual growth I wrote doesn't exist!

 

You go to a job and make income. I do this. We both do okay and pay our bills. Good enough?

 

As to the info-tapes...I'd only be selling those if the "idea" was crepe. Which it isn't

[comix4fun]

Now...since this particular podcast was looking at the hobby from a financial angle...do I believe this MAN-THING cover will prove to be a good "investment" in the long run? No, I do not.

Good "investment" is highly subjective. (One man's present bank-cd-crushing double in 10 yrs is another's utter failure to beat his micro cap managing peers!)

So, in your opinion, will vintage Man-Thing, Swamp Thing, and the like bought at today's prices end up as good investments? If we are only considering ROI?

 

(Just so people don't accuse of my of picking on art I don't own, I collect Swamp Thing!)

No. If I'm not doubling my money annualized, terrible investment (as that is my opportunity cost). Answered that one before you even asked

 

 

Doubled Annually....that means every $100 you put in 10 years ago is now $102,400.

 

Is there a place where I can buy your info-tapes?

Chris I know you're famous for the hit-n-run one-liners, but I'll go out on a limb here and assume you actually care about a serious answer vs. just taking potshots to impress...

 

When I'm considering whether to "invest" (and I'd put speculatively in front of it) in something, the question I ask myself is "can I double this in 12 months or less?" If the answer is "no", I move on. A "yes" and that's what I do. But since this is full-time occupationally, I'm pulling all my liquidity out for living expenses (and luxuries like comic art!) So that $100 that becomes $200 in a year or less is not then rolled right back to create a new $400 from $200. And it for sure (as I wrote before) isn't just sitting there doubling every year for ten years to $100k. Dude...c'mon that would fly in the face of the very same perpetual growth I wrote doesn't exist!

 

You go to a job and make income. I do this. We both do okay and pay our bills. Good enough?

 

As to the info-tapes...I'd only be selling those if the "idea" was crepe. Which it isn't

 

 

My goodness, that's some thin skin. It wasn't a potshot...it was a projection of your model.

Buys and flips, in one year's time.

 

And I don't think there's anyone here I feel the need to impress.

 

Lots of people look at the size of the pool we're swimming in and think (justifiably) that it's going to be far more difficult to profit $10,000 by doubling $100 pieces to $200...or even $500 pieces to $1000, that it is by taking a lesser percentage profit on a larger investment they only have to perfect once.

 

I bought a key silver age comic for $15k a year ago that I could sell tomorrow for $25k

 

That's 10k but only 67%, so it fails your model, and thus is a garbage investment. Was the word you used garbage? It might have been junk. You might have just called it terrible.

 

There's so much money left on the table if someone's only interested if they can turn $100 to $200 or $200 to $400.

 

If I was really taking a shot at you, you wouldn't have to ask me if I was. I am usually pretty sharp around the edges when it comes to those things.