Jon Berk interview in Forbes.

[Norrin_Radd]

http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/22/cz_ms_0422soapbox_inl.html

 

Comic Book Superheroes Hit Six Figures

Missy Sullivan, 04.22.05, 6:01 PM ET

 

Rare original art for sci-fi classic Planet Comics #1. After Jon Berk made a cash-and-trade deal for this, the seller offered him $10,000 to call off the deal.

 

 

NEW YORK - Jon Berk will admit it straight off: He has a thing for Spider-Man. In fact, the 53-year-old civil trial attorney in Hartford, Conn., has been enjoying comics and superheroes since the age of 7. But it was not until his law school days that he began seriously collecting them. Over 30 years, he has amassed some 18,000 comic books and 200 pieces of related original artwork now valued between $3 million and $4 million.

 

Comic book collecting has come of age, with prices for important mint-condition books climbing well into the six figures. Berk collects with the seriousness of an historian and the zeal of a kid, ferreting out material like the first modern comic with a slick varnished cover, Funnies on Parade (1933), and little-known gems like Dr. Occult (1935), who developed into a Superman prototype.

 

Forbes: What's the focus of your collection?

 

Berk: I'm really into the history, which is why I focus on pre-hero comics [superman made his first appearance in June 1938] and books and art from what is called the golden age. I've also got an extensive collection of books and art from the silver age, including key D.C. comics and a complete Marvel collection.

 

Forbes: Can you define the "ages" of comic books?

 

The dates vary slightly depending on who you talk to in the hobby, but here's how I define them. The earliest comics were compilations of strips from Sunday papers. This "pre-hero" material ranges from 1933 to Action Comics #1 [the Superman debut]. I have at least 100 pre-hero books.

 

I define the golden age as 1938 to 1949, and I break it into two periods: the war period [1938-45], when you saw a lot of superheroes, and postwar [1945-49], when heroes were on the wane and crime, love and teenage themes gained ground. Golden age comics were bold and often garishly colored. Because they were being drawn literally by teenagers who were inventing this genre, they have an unbridled exuberance. I have 1,800 golden age comics.

 

I call 1949 to 1956 the dark age. There was a lot of innovative work done, but much of it had dark, moralistic themes. There was a lot of science fiction, horror and crime, some quite gruesome, with decapitated heads and the like.

 

In my opinion, the silver age [1956-1969] started with D.C. Comics' Showcase #4 [september-October 1956]. That issue reinvented the Flash, a golden age character known for his super speed. What you see in the silver age is the return of superhero supremacy, stronger storytelling, more personalities and greater stylization--more of a "company" look. And more soap opera to the stories. When Johnny Storm lost his girlfriend to the Negative Zone, would he be able to get her? Find out in the next issue!

 

After that comes the bronze age, which I think started with issues like Conan the Barbarian #1, Iron Man #1 and Hulk #102. The modern age begins in about 1990.

 

Forbes: Prices must have changed quite a bit since you first started.

 

When I was a kid on Long Island, I could get a whole summer's worth of comics for $5, with change back. During my law school years, you could get old issues for a quarter, and a big purchase would be $8. These days, books sell from a few dollars up into five and six figures.

 

Since the 1970s, prices have risen exponentially, and the market has gotten a lot more sophisticated. It's more of a business. Condition is graded on a 1-10 scale by a group called CGC, which then "slabs" the rated books in plastic to preserve them. The CGC stamp of approval carries confidence and integrity in the marketplace; it's very valuable to neophyte collectors.

 

Forbes: Is there a holy grail collectors look for?

 

The first appearance of the major superheroes: like Action Comics #1 [1938], the first Superman; Detective Comics #27 [1939], the first Batman; Amazing Fantasy #15, the first Spider-Man [1962]. There are probably around 100 desirable copies of Action #1 out there, so you're lucky to find one in any shape; depending on condition, you can pay between $30,000 and $400,000. With Amazing Fantasy #15, there are thousands of copies. But the market for silver age is robust, so they can sell for up to $90,000.

 

Forbes: Which artists do you focus on?

 

I love Alex Schomburg, whose war covers are filled with superheroes fighting bad guys. Every inch is covered with action and energy. What appeals to me is that they portray the theme of good versus evil contextualized within a specific historic period. There's no question that American superheroes were fighting the Nazis and Japanese before December 1941. Like in Marvel Mystery #15 [1940], you have the Human Torch crashing through a tunnel to save Sub-Mariner, who was lashed to a Nazi tank.

 

But of the golden age artists, Lou Fine is my favorite. He brought a real sense of fine-art illustration to comic books and is known for his incredible detail. When he draws a locomotive, you see every cross-hatch. He used a Japanese brush to get dramatically fine lines. He could draw saliva and drool better than anyone.

 

Jack Kirby's silver age material is highly collectible because he drew the major superheroes, like Spider-Man, in a bold, dynamic fashion. If someone was getting punched on a Kirby cover, you could feel it. His style was very visceral.

 

Legendary silver age artists include Jerry Robinson [1950s Batman] and Carmine Infantino [the Flash]. On the Marvel side, there's Steve Ditko, the first Spider-Man artist. Grab his Dr. Strange artwork if you can find it.

 

Forbes: How does condition affect value?

 

Many silver age collectors are very picky about condition. A near-mint rating is 9.4 and a near-mint-plus, 9.6. In certain books, that distinction can affect value by 50%. Collectors are more forgiving of condition with hard-to-find golden age books.

 

To me, comic books are different from coins or art. They have a story between the covers. I got into them because I like to read them, handle them. They bring me fond memories. So while I do buy slabbed things, the first thing I do is take them out. There's nothing like the smell of a comic book in the morning.

 

A big issue right now is valuing restored books. Any restoration is severely frowned upon, like a scarlet "R." Restorations in silver and bronze age books can reduce value by 50% to 90%. But there needs to be a recognition of different degrees of restoration: If minor work is done, it should affect value proportionately.

 

Forbes: Which is your favorite piece?

 

The original artwork for Planet Comics #1 [January 1940]. It's the most significant golden age sci-fi title, done by Lou Fine: a classic cover by a classic artist. It's the heart and soul, the nexus of my collection.

 

 

I found out about it at a show and made a trade-and-cash deal, total value $60,000. Later, the seller asked if I would take $10,000 not to go through with the deal. He had probably been offered more. It goes to show, he who hesitates.... It's probably worth $150,000 now.

 

A number of comic deals are subject to pure trade or cash and trade. Of course, that practice muddies values. The price guides can't account for that activity.

 

Forbes: How has your collection appreciated?

 

Overall, I'd say the value has tripled in the 30 years I've been collecting. On an individual item basis, I paid $20,000 for my Action #1 in 1992, and that's at least a $100,000 book. Art prices can be more explosive. In 1996, I bought a Schomburg All New #8 cover [1943] for $5,000 that's now easily worth $25,000.

 

Forbes: I hear stories about auction house shenanigans in the hobby.

 

There are three practices that I think discourage the market from finding its own level. I have written letters of suggestion to certain companies, but to date, have not received a single response.

 

1) Not acknowledging when the auction house owns the material, which allows them to set artificially high reserves.

 

2) Letting employees bid. That, to me, seems a conflict of interest.

 

3) Not showing that the reserve price has been met in a Web auction. Often, just before an auction closes, the bid will jump sharply, a strong sign that the house is trying to goose bidding closer to the reserve. It detracts from the process and discourages me from bidding.

 

Forbes: What mistakes can you advise collectors to avoid?

 

Don't get anything restored. Never buy a book with browning or brittle pages. Don't have feet of clay. A lot of this stuff comes around just once. You've got to be ready to go for it.

[ComicBookGuy]

A great article about one of the hobby's great collectors! Thanks for sharing.

 

Two points struck me: 1) I would think his collection is worth considerably more than $3-4 million. 2) I blanked out trying to remember where Kirby drew Spider-man. FF #73 and... Maybe it's just been a long day...

 

Joe

[tth2]

This article was already discussed in the GA forum, where Jon also helpfully answered various questions from board members.

[Silver Surfer]

You guys should venture over to the dark side (GA forum) more often, you don't know what your missing.

[tth2]

You guys should venture over to the dark side (GA forum) more often, you don't know what your missing.

SSSHHHH!

[PovertyRow]

*** Forbes: What mistakes can you advise collectors to avoid?

 

Don't get anything restored. Never buy a book with browning or brittle pages. Don't have feet of clay. A lot of this stuff comes around just once. You've got to be ready to go for it. ***

 

I disagree with the first sentiment: "Don't get anything restored." Again we have the perception that a minimal restoration and a "frankenstein" book are the same. Glom everyting under "restored" be it a 1/4 inch tear seal or a book with half the cover reproduced. They are not the same. And beyond that, what is the criteria here used for "restored"? A slack and far too general answer. May be the fault of the interviewer but wish Jon had gone into detail on this topic. Or maybe he did and the interviewer edited it (muist be fair at all times!)

 

I definitely agree about the pages. I will go for a lesser cover with better pages than a better cover with brown pages (brittle doesn;t even factor into it. To paraphrase the late J. Cochran: "If the page is brittle, from your want list you must whittle!"

 

As regards the last sentiment - you've got to be ready to go for it - dang usually I cannot afford that!

[tth2]

*** Forbes: What mistakes can you advise collectors to avoid?

 

Don't get anything restored. ***

 

I disagree with the first sentiment: "Don't get anything restored." Again we have the perception that a minimal restoration and a "frankenstein" book are the same. Glom everyting under "restored" be it a 1/4 inch tear seal or a book with half the cover reproduced. They are not the same. And beyond that, what is the criteria here used for "restored"? A slack and far too general answer. May be the fault of the interviewer but wish Jon had gone into detail on this topic. Or maybe he did and the interviewer edited it (muist be fair at all times!)

Just go to the original thread in the GA forums! In fact, the same issue was raised by nearmint, who said:

 

"Maybe I'm nutty, but just recently I've come to believe that slight(p) books are undervalued(especially Golden Age), and just might be a pretty darn good investment."

 

Jon replied as follows:

 

"that may well be for the sohisticated collector (knowing degree of restoration and all that), but for this mass distributed missive, I believe it appropriate for the neophyte to steer away from restored books if this neophyte is looking for immediate investment return. COLLECTORS are a whole different animal. But remember the audience I was asked to address in a couple of generalized questions i assumed were investment types that know NOTHING about comics....(By the way I think this PLOD thing is way out of whack in the land of GA. So you and I agree to that extent. Hopefully some sanity may return one day for what has gone on in the world of GA and restoration)"

 

So he agrees with you, Pov, and indeed was consciously simplifying his message in light of his perceived audience.

[PovertyRow]

So he agrees with you, Pov, and indeed was consciously simplifying his message in light of his perceived audience

 

Well seriously, I honesstly don't see how simplifying a message in light of a perceived audience has ANY value beyond continuiing a stereotype. (Sorry but it is how I feel.) I do feel such ideas expressed this wayare more negative than positive as far as education goes.

 

Had Jon even hinted that there are degress of restoration maybe a few would pick up on it. But even better, had he made a point of breaking out restoration, in this interview, into some really factual ideas, maybe even more would start to pick up on it.

 

But to leave it as it is, regardless of what he has posted here, is a disservice.

 

I shall seek the GA Forum for this but also want to reply in this place.

 

PS - Hope ye be hale and hearty!

[greggy]

POV...Jon ignores you...just like everyone else!

[PovertyRow]

POV...Jon ignores you...just like everyone else!

 

Fun is fun, Greggy - but not now.

[tth2]

Had Jon even hinted that there are degress of restoration maybe a few would pick up on it. But even better, had he made a point of breaking out restoration, in this interview, into some really factual ideas, maybe even more would start to pick up on it.

 

But to leave it as it is, regardless of what he has posted here, is a disservice.

I disagree. If Jon were writing the article himself, then sure, you're right.

 

But he was being interviewed for a mainstream pub and in my opinion erred properly on the side of caution. He had no idea how much of what he said would be actually used, or how it would be ultimately presented (remember the Forbes article on Halperin, which he thought was going to be a puff piece and turned into an attack on him?). The writer might not pick up the subtle nuances of what Jon might say in a more detailed conversation about restoration, and potentially might have simplified any long discourse from Jon into some pithy quote like "Restoration in comics is fine". At the most all he should have said was that restoration was still a controversial topic within the hobby, which it clearly is, as evidenced by the different camps on these boards. You can't go wrong in advising newbies to stick to non-restored books.

[PovertyRow]

Had Jon even hinted that there are degress of restoration maybe a few would pick up on it. But even better, had he made a point of breaking out restoration, in this interview, into some really factual ideas, maybe even more would start to pick up on it.

 

But to leave it as it is, regardless of what he has posted here, is a disservice.

I disagree. If Jon were writing the article himself, then sure, you're right.

 

But he was being interviewed for a mainstream pub and in my opinion erred properly on the side of caution. He had no idea how much of what he said would be actually used, or how it would be ultimately presented (remember the Forbes article on Halperin, which he thought was going to be a puff piece and turned into an attack on him?). The writer might not pick up the subtle nuances of what Jon might say in a more detailed conversation about restoration, and potentially might have simplified any long discourse from Jon into some pithy quote like "Restoration in comics is fine". At the most all he should have said was that restoration was still a controversial topic within the hobby, which it clearly is, as evidenced by the different camps on these boards. You can't go wrong in advising newbies to stick to non-restored books.

 

Ideas properly phrased would be difficult to mis-quote. For example: "There are various forms and degrees of restoration. Before you consider restored books, educate yourself on the various degrees that restoration can take. Then decide for yourself what to collect."

 

It would be interetsing to see how a columnist (and I have been interviewed in both newspaper and radio)n and mis-quoted/had quotes attributed etc. (in newspaper) back in the 70's (long before my comic books days) to understand how interviews can be "lead" or mis-quoted. But the example or similar as I posted leaves little room for interpetation.

 

Such an answerabove I would give in a heartbeat. And I really do not see how it could be mis-interpreted, misread or even abbreviated into "Restoration is fine." Were I ever interviewed on comics and restoration, I would make a distinct point of raising this exact thing and phrasing it in the exact way.

[tth2]

Fair enough. I personally would have said that restoration is bad and there is a special place in hell reserved for people who restored books for purely cosmetic purposes.

 

But that's just me.

[PovertyRow]

Fair enough. I personally would have said that restoration is bad and there is a special place in hell reserved for people who restored books for purely cosmetic purposes.

 

Now you see? Are you saying all restoration is for "purely cosmetic purposes"? If so I say grrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[tth2]

Fair enough. I personally would have said that restoration is bad and there is a special place in hell reserved for people who restored books for purely cosmetic purposes.

 

Now you see? Are you saying all restoration is for "purely cosmetic purposes"? If so I say grrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

No, read what I said. I'm against restoration for purely cosmetic purposes, such as people who touched up their Church copies which were in no danger of disintegrating or decomposing, simply to make them look even more perfect. This implies that I have no problem with restoration for preservation purposes (i.e., mold will eat through the paper if it's not cleaned off or if the moldy paper is not trimmed off).

[PovertyRow]

Fair enough. I personally would have said that restoration is bad and there is a special place in hell reserved for people who restored books for purely cosmetic purposes.

 

Now you see? Are you saying all restoration is for "purely cosmetic purposes"? If so I say grrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

No, read what I said. I'm against restoration for purely cosmetic purposes, such as people who touched up their Church copies which were in no danger of disintegrating or decomposing, simply to make them look even more perfect. This implies that I have no problem with restoration for preservation purposes (i.e., mold will eat through the paper if it's not cleaned off or if the moldy paper is not trimmed off).

 

Ahhh - you tricked me with complexity and logic! How DARE you! And I now see your point and am redirecting the "grrrrr" towards me. Dagnabbit.

[jbcomicbox]

2) I blanked out trying to remember where Kirby drew Spider-man. FF #73 and... Maybe it's just been a long day...

 

Joe

 

....a misquote in context but Kirby did the Strange Tales annual 2 and FF Annual 1 with Spidey.....next line references Ditko...."first spidey artist".....

[jbcomicbox]

Had Jon even hinted that there are degress of restoration maybe a few would pick up on it. But even better, had he made a point of breaking out restoration, in this interview, into some really factual ideas, maybe even more would start to pick up on it.

 

But to leave it as it is, regardless of what he has posted here, is a disservice.

I disagree. If Jon were writing the article himself, then sure, you're right.

 

But he was being interviewed for a mainstream pub and in my opinion erred properly on the side of caution. He had no idea how much of what he said would be actually used, or how it would be ultimately presented (remember the Forbes article on Halperin, which he thought was going to be a puff piece and turned into an attack on him?). The writer might not pick up the subtle nuances of what Jon might say in a more detailed conversation about restoration, and potentially might have simplified any long discourse from Jon into some pithy quote like "Restoration in comics is fine". At the most all he should have said was that restoration was still a controversial topic within the hobby, which it clearly is, as evidenced by the different camps on these boards. You can't go wrong in advising newbies to stick to non-restored books.

 

Ideas properly phrased would be difficult to mis-quote. For example: "There are various forms and degrees of restoration. Before you consider restored books, educate yourself on the various degrees that restoration can take. Then decide for yourself what to collect."

 

It would be interetsing to see how a columnist (and I have been interviewed in both newspaper and radio)n and mis-quoted/had quotes attributed etc. (in newspaper) back in the 70's (long before my comic books days) to understand how interviews can be "lead" or mis-quoted. But the example or similar as I posted leaves little room for interpetation.

 

Pov

.....and thru my years of collecting i have several 'restored books'..Saying a book is 'restored' is sort of saying one has a 'knee problem'- it means little especially for GA books...Again, she asked me MANY questions.....you are seeing the distillation of an hour conversation taken TWO years ago....We covered ALOT of territory comic history, comic art, ages of books etc....Frankly, I would still tell the NEW collector/investor to beware of buying restored books until they get a feel for resale.....I have consistenly stated that the restored thing is out of hand for GA....

 

....on the other hand, how many interviewee's mention Lou Fine and the way he could draw 'ghoul drool'...Most interviews never get beyond mention of Action 1 and Amazing Fantasy 15... Jon

[jbcomicbox]

Pov---here are my thoughts on restoration as written four years ago as an editiorial in the Comic Book Marketplace......these are my views....

 

A MODEST PROPOSAL

 

“Restoration” Is there a word that provokes more “fear” and “misunderstanding” as this term is applied to comicbooks? Neophytes to the comicbook arena are constantly warned to beware buying restored books. Even many “experienced” collectors have varying views and ignorance as to what exactly “restoration” is. In my estimation, a frenzy has been created that many will presume a book has been restored so to avoid appearing uninformed or taken advantage of.

 

The hobby of comicbook collecting continues to grow and evolve. Record breaking prices are being set for a number of books. However, even at this stage of the hobby, knowledge as to the varying degrees of “restoration” and the corresponding pricing of “restored” books is ill-defined and inconsistent. What does it mean that a book is “restored”? How does it effect pricing? Is it effected by whether it is a golden age or silver age book? If it is a Mile High (Church) book is a different standard applied?

 

This issue, while always a subject of backroom discussions, appears to be creeping into the public forum. In the recent Overstreet Price Guide (pages 205-206), Comic Guaranty, LLC, which is providing grading and restoration detection services, raises questions about certain forms of “restoration” as effecting grading and desirability of a book. Although not voicing an “opinion” per se, it is clear that the thrust of the article is to question why certain “enhancing restoration” should be considered in a negative light.

 

In a preceding article in the same book, the Guide addresses (but does not give ultimate “guidance”) the issue by employing words such as “repair” as opposed to restoration and “non-additive” restoration and “preventive techniques”. The Guide then states the obvious: the more restoration that is performed, the less the value of the book compared to its apparent grade value. The Guide concludes, after giving some rough valuations guidelines for certain age comicbooks, that the price realized varies on the demand and availability of a particular book. A difficult subject? Of course. These articles are initiating a long overdue public discussion as to the effect of “restoration” on pricing and whether, under certain circumstance, certain forms of “restoration” effect pricing at all.

 

The June auction for Greg Manning Auctions reflects the “confusion” and lack of institutional guidance in the area of “restoration”. For instance, for the Church copy of More Fun 52 (Item 2278), the book is given a CGC “universal grade” of NM-. However, it is noted that the book has “very minor” glue and “very minor” color touch. Yet Captain America 1 (Item 2707) is given a CGC “restored grade” of VF- for a “very small” amount of color touch and a piece of tape removed. (Please tell me why CGC will not identify where the “minor” color touch is-See item 2720 in the Manning Auction.). Finally, Batman 1 (Item 2187) is listed as an apparent NM-. The description indicates that the book has had a “light” water cleaning and pressing. “Nothing has been added to this copy, thus it is completely non-restored.” Confused?

 

Why this spin of verbiage?

 

Simple. These otherwise beautiful books (but, more importantly, big buck books) have “only” had “minor” things “done” to them. The seller does not want the price to be effected significantly. But if this spin is appropriate for these books why not for other non-keys? A book is restored/non-additive restored/repaired, or it is not. What is “very minor” color touch as opposed to “very small” amount of color touch? How much is needed to make it “minor” color touch or “moderate”? Is a book that that has been cleaned not restored? Okay, maybe not, “because “nothing has been added to it”. But does it make a different if the book must be disassembled so that the “cleaned” book is not in the “original” assembled published condition? I do not know. But it appears to turn on whose ox is being protected or gored (i.e. if you are selling or buying).

 

 

 

 

A modest proposal if you please. It is time for the hobby to define types, as well as degree, of restoration. What makes it “repairs”? What makes it “non-additive restoration”? What makes it “minor” restoration or “moderate” or “heavy”? How does a particular “action” performed on a book effect its price or should effect its price? I propose that the appropriate entities in the hobby send out surveys to the leading restorers in the hobby and have them list all types of work that can be performed on a book and what they consider to be “repair”, preventative repair (tape removal), restoration, etc. What do they consider makes it “very” minor or minor or moderate work. Which do they consider most intrusive to the book? A decision has to be made about tear seals. It is the length of the seal or other measures that determine the “nomenclature” that we see so often used in sales? What if repair/restoration is “reversed”? Let the hobby develop accepted categories for the terms so freely bandied about such as repair, preventive restoration, non-additive restoration, etc. Also although a book has been “restored”, how significant is it to the book? All of this should, (with admitted difficulty) be institutionalized into categories and, perhaps, lead to the creation of a Restoration Scale of R-0 to R-10 (or any number). If a book can be so classified maybe the hobby can “institutionalize” for the non-high demand non-pedigree books (as opposed to high demand/ pedigree books that seem more impervious to such “defects”) as to how the R value effects price. Such a dialogue conducted in an organized and informed fashion (as opposed to pre-conceived dogma of select few) is long over due and will add to the continued growth of the hobby.

 

Jon Berk 5/27/01

 

 

'nuff said

 

Frankly, what blew my mind in the new Guide, is there is not a word about restoration or how to deal with it...or things to think about....

[Silver Surfer]

Jon,

 

Made any noteable purchases oflate you can share with us?