Large auction today with a lot of original film concept art 0

[vodou]

1 hour ago, The Voord said:

Harryhausen at his best . . .

That's a whole lotta fun right there.

[delekkerste]

5 hours ago, Bronty said:

7800 E for a poster?   I know everything is relative or explainable blah blah but jeez.

I can understand 7800 for a poster a lot easier than I can understand 181K for Star-Lord's mask ("Who???").  Who cares if it's the most recognizable piece of Guardians prop-ware - they are fun movies, but...c'mon.  

I suspect the rule in fine art where something like 80 or 90% of pieces never sell for more than they did the first time around also applies to movie props.  Including - no, wait, especially this Star-Lord mask.  Adjusted for inflation, I bet it's not even worth the buyer's premium from this sale a few decades from now.  Sounds harsh, but, I bet I'm right. 

[Panelfan1]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I can understand 7800 for a poster a lot easier than I can understand 181K for Star-Lord's mask ("Who???").  Who cares if it's the most recognizable piece of Guardians prop-ware - they are fun movies, but...c'mon.  

I suspect the rule in fine art where something like 80 or 90% of pieces never sell for more than they did the first time around also applies to movie props.  Including - no, wait, especially this Star-Lord mask.  Adjusted for inflation, I bet it's not even worth the buyer's premium from this sale a few decades from now.  Sounds harsh, but, I bet I'm right. 

yeah - but if you put it on you can BE Starlord or possibly Chris Pratt.  take your pick - either way, you will be sooo cool.

[Bronty]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I can understand 7800 for a poster a lot easier than I can understand 181K for Star-Lord's mask ("Who???").  Who cares if it's the most recognizable piece of Guardians prop-ware - they are fun movies, but...c'mon.  

I suspect the rule in fine art where something like 80 or 90% of pieces never sell for more than they did the first time around also applies to movie props.  Including - no, wait, especially this Star-Lord mask.  Adjusted for inflation, I bet it's not even worth the buyer's premium from this sale a few decades from now.  Sounds harsh, but, I bet I'm right. 

It certainly seems like a poor decision investment-wise as it would need to be worth a million way down the road to make today’s investment worthwhile and that seems really unlikely.    

However leaving outlier and one off sales out, my understanding is the prices on props in general have been climbing.     

[zhamlau]

Were buying collections of ink, paper, and staples for 5 and 6 figures....were paying paying mortgage payments to out right full house values to land 11x17 inch sheets of paper drawn by artists who maybe did 1000+ very similar examples over the years.

Everything is subjective, everything is stupid if you look at it this way. Having the single best iconic item from something loved by millions and millions of fans and collectors...people just go nuts when its the best possible

As for the poster...the more i think about it, the more I think that piece was a good value. I wonder how many were made.

[vodou]

7 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

Were buying collections of ink, paper, and staples for 5 and 6 figures....were paying paying mortgage payments to out right full house values to land 11x17 inch sheets of paper drawn by artists who maybe did 1000+ very similar examples over the years.

Everything is subjective, everything is stupid if you look at it this way. Having the single best iconic item from something loved by millions and millions of fans and collectors...people just go nuts when its the best possible

As for the poster...the more i think about it, the more I think that piece was a good value. I wonder how many were made.

The primary interest collectors have in collecting something is that other collectors do too. That lack of independent thinking alone is stupid. But stupid is as stupid does, what can you do? We all know what these hobbies looked like before everybody was 'in' them...barren wastelands of cheap throwaway 'stuff' seemingly everywhere, usually thrown away too, and only a handful of pioneers cared (for whatever reason) enough to break mold. They make the bank, if they hang onto the stuff long enough, everybody else...not so much. And the same happens in reverse re: bag holders and scale of loss.

What I'd be interested in talking about is cases of pioneers going in deep and the broader appeal never happening. What did they do with their early (and only) adopter hoards? Unload at a loss and move on? Keep loading up for that pie in the sky day (that never comes)? Or is it like serial entrepreneurs and inventors that for every WIN they have fifty LOSE but the scale of the WIN is so huge it overpowers the loses, and really it's just a matter of perseverance (to that eventual win) in the face of failure?

Anybody have anything for that? I don't but I'm dying to read more about it!

[Bronty]

3 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Were buying collections of ink, paper, and staples for 5 and 6 figures....were paying paying mortgage payments to out right full house values to land 11x17 inch sheets of paper drawn by artists who maybe did 1000+ very similar examples over the years.

Everything is subjective, everything is stupid if you look at it this way. Having the single best iconic item from something loved by millions and millions of fans and collectors...people just go nuts when its the best possible

Agreed.    On some level though most people are paying house values for something they think can get them a nicer house down the road.    There’s an expected return at play whether people admit it or not, for most participants

Edited September 30, 2017 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

2 hours ago, Bronty said:

Agreed.    On some level though most people are paying house values for something they think can get them a nicer house down the road.    There’s an expected return at play whether people admit it or not, for most participants

I don't agree at all.  Not that I think comics and OA are a rock-solid long-term investment (quite the opposite the farther out we go, IMO), but, at least there is a very developed market for both, with lots of liquidity (more for comics, but even for a good portion of OA) and established values.  Movie props as a whole may be going up in price (most things have been post-2008), but, I suspect that it's like contemporary art in that most newer pieces do not have a lot of liquidity, and that max prices are probably achieved at the first sale, as with the vast majority of contemporary art (much of which eventually becomes close to worthless, as is probably the fate of most TV/movie props).  Sure, the truly iconic pieces resell for large amounts over time, but, I get enough of these prop catalogs to realize that most of it has very ephemeral value.  Like when Profiles did their massive sale of "Lost" props right after the series ended.  How much is that stuff going to fetch today vs. 7 years ago?  What about in another 20 years?  Pennies on the dollar I'm guessing for a lot of those pieces from 2010 levels.  

I think there's something like 350-400+ scripted TV shows out there now (plus foreign), plus movies and everything else.  More content is created in a month, maybe even a week, than entire years from, say, 35-40 years ago - it will be the rare franchise in this day and age of maximum content saturation to attract the kind of enormous, rabid following that sticks with a series even after it gets put out to pasture and where people are willing to pony up big bucks years after the fact (as with Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.)  I think my friend James far overestimates the value of a "single best iconic item from something loved by millions and millions of fans and collectors" (and, unlike James, I'm sure there are a multiple masks out there, and will be more made with each sequel and guest appearance and such).  After the current Guardians cast ages out and the series gets shelved for a while, people will just move on to the other hundreds/thousands of creative properties out there.  And, in any case, unlike, say, the $185K Kirby FF cover that just sold, where there would be more and more buyers at each incrementally lower price point, I doubt there's the same for something like a Star-Lord mask.  And, in 10 or 20 or 30 years, when the "love" for Guardians inevitably just turns out to be one of a few hundred other things that its current fans "like", I bet those potential re-sale bids just keep plummeting lower and lower.  Something like this mask I bet is a 90%+ loser in inflation-adjusted terms over the very long-run. 

Might seem inconceivable in a hot market that's been rising for so long, but, let's not make the erroneous assumption that you can just linearly extrapolate the future indefinitely.  Over the long-term, it rarely works out that way.  

Contrary to one auctioneer's spin, the more you bid is not the more something is worth.  The more you bid, the more you overpaid. 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by delekkerste

[PhilipB2k17]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I don't agree at all.  Not that I think comics and OA are a rock-solid long-term investment (quite the opposite the farther out we go, IMO), but, at least there is a very developed market for both, with lots of liquidity (more for comics, but even for a good portion of OA) and established values.  Movie props as a whole may be going up in price (most things have been post-2008), but, I suspect that it's like contemporary art in that most newer pieces do not have a lot of liquidity, and that max prices are probably achieved at the first sale, as with the vast majority of contemporary art (much of which eventually becomes close to worthless, as is probably the fate of most TV/movie props).  Sure, the truly iconic pieces resell for large amounts over time, but, I get enough of these prop catalogs to realize that most of it has very ephemeral value.  Like when Profiles did their massive sale of "Lost" props right after the series ended.  How much is that stuff going to fetch today vs. 7 years ago?  What about in another 20 years?  Pennies on the dollar I'm guessing for a lot of those pieces from 2010 levels.  

I think there's something like 350-400+ scripted TV shows out there now (plus foreign), plus movies and everything else.  More content is created in a month, maybe even a week, than entire years from, say, 35-40 years ago - it will be the rare franchise in this day and age of maximum content saturation to attract the kind of enormous, rabid following that sticks with a series even after it gets put out to pasture and where people are willing to pony up big bucks years after the fact (as with Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.)  I think my friend James far overestimates the value of a "single best iconic item from something loved by millions and millions of fans and collectors" (and, unlike James, I'm sure there are a multiple masks out there, and will be more made with each sequel and guest appearance and such).  After the current Guardians cast ages out and the series gets shelved for a while, people will just move on to the other hundreds/thousands of creative properties out there.  And, in any case, unlike, say, the $185K Kirby FF cover that just sold, where there would be more and more buyers at each incrementally lower price point, I doubt there's the same for something like a Star-Lord mask.  And, in 10 or 20 or 30 years, when the "love" for Guardians inevitably just turns out to be one of a few hundred other things that its current fans "like", I bet those potential re-sale bids just keep plummeting lower and lower.  Something like this mask I bet is a 90%+ loser in inflation-adjusted terms over the very long-run. 

Might seem inconceivable in a hot market that's been rising for so long, but, let's not make the erroneous assumption that you can just linearly extrapolate the future indefinitely.  Over the long-term, it rarely works out that way.  

Contrary to one auctioneer's spin, the more you bid is not the more something is worth.  The more you bid, the more you overpaid. 

 

I think something like Venkmann’s Ghostbuster uniform will retain its value. It’s already got 30 years of proven staying power as a pop culture icon. 

That franchise will eventually get rebooted. And that uniform style will get reused. 

[cstojano]

2 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I think something like Venkmann’s Ghostbuster uniform will retain its value. It’s already got 30 years of proven staying power as a pop culture icon. 

That franchise will eventually get rebooted. And that uniform style will get reused. 

Yeah I think there needs to be a clear distinction between the "of the moment" themed sales (like the Lost one mentioned, and they have done many more) and things that have already seasoned.

To be honest I am surprised there is any market at all for some of this stuff. Looking at propstore's closed sales reveals a whole list of single franchise themed sales that I wouldn't think would draw much interest.

Edited September 30, 2017 by cstojano

[Bronty]

Gene:   It seems you misinterpreted my comments as the reference was to comics not props.    That being said whether we think it’s wise or whether we think it’s supported by past values or whether we think it’s liquid, the guy paying 50k or 150k for a Star Wars prop isn’t doing it with the expectation of flushing his money down the toilet.    We can point to examples in comics and OA that look unlikely to hold their value and we can do the same thing in props.    Whether or not a return is expected is entirely a different question than whether one will be realized, but in general most people in most collector hobbies believe - right or wrong - in the value of what they are buying

[comicwiz]

Discussions on the predictable aspects of collecting may seem analogous to a protective instinct, particularly ones involving making smart, educated choices - maybe even ones we can defend, from a nostalgic or sentimental perspective when all other logic fails. The perils of fad collecting are something we've all had some experience learning or reasonably understanding.  Similarly, we can apply the tried/tested concepts to inform our methods, and this isn't something exclusive to OA or prop collecting - hit and miss doesn't cut it for a fine wine collector banking on a celler that continues to age great wine. Where things stray somewhat is when logic or science fail us, and we can't understand why that batch of wine aged badly, especially when you consider the happenstance possibilities for a crate of old champagne salavaged from a 170 year old ocean nap turns out not only to be drinkable, but remarkably enjoyable.  I find enjoyment in collecting the things that make me happy, and while I find myself obsessively monitoring markets and their activities to remain dialed-in, I do this realizing that even a wine afficionado will need a can-do outlook and may need to learn a few salad dressing or canning recipes in the face of misfortune.

Edited October 1, 2017 by comicwiz

[delekkerste]

3 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I think something like Venkmann’s Ghostbuster uniform will retain its value. It’s already got 30 years of proven staying power as a pop culture icon. 

That franchise will eventually get rebooted. And that uniform style will get reused. 

Maybe, maybe not.  33 years of staying power just means that the Gen Xers who loved the movie as teenagers are now the 40 and 50-somethings who plonk down big money for this kind of stuff.  That could very well only be the half-life/half the cycle of the film's popularity - in the year 2050 (another 33 years from now, the original film being 33 years old now), will there still be a fervor for this film from 1984?  Frankly, I doubt it, especially given the literally exponential growth in content we've seen - mark my words, the popularity of franchises will fall by the wayside over time faster than you've ever seen in the past given the hypergrowth of content.    

Those of us in our 30s-50s now grew up in an era where it was pretty easy to catch up with almost all the big TV shows and, especially movies (both past and present up to that time).  Pretty much everyone in my generation has seen, for example, the three original Star Wars films.  I don't know why people are at all surprised when they hear of a teenager or 20-something or even early 30-something person not having watched __________________ (Star Wars, The Godfather, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, Casablanca or whatever iconic, all-time classic from earlier decades).  As the years pass, more and more and more and more people will not have seen these films!!  How can they?  There are only so many hours in a day, and the amount of content out there is exploding at literally an exponential pace.  Someone born today does not have the luxury as we did of living in an era of much less content and being able to somewhat keep pace with new content as it came out over the years/decades.  I bet the average American born in 2017, by the time they are 30, will not have seen nor have any care about a ton of movies from the '70s and '80s and '90s that are so revered today.  Even with remakes and reboots, I'll make a bet all day long and twice on Sunday that the films I revered as a youth, like a Ghostbusters, Top Gun, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, etc. will be dramatically less popular 30 years from now than today, as will props from these kind of films (at least adjusted for inflation).  I think the staying power of something like the Guardians franchise, over the long-run, simply won't be there.  Will Guardians be as beloved in 2047 (33 years after the first film) as Ghostbusters is in 2017?  I doubt it.  Maybe more people will love it than Ghostbusters at the time, but, it will be well on its way to fading into history by then.  No one in 2047 will be surprised if someone born in 2017 has never seen Guardians 1 or 2.  

Hey, I'm all for buying whatever you love.  I'd love Maverick's helmet from Top Gun, for example.  I love Uncanny X-Men #172 more than anyone else in the world probably and wouldn't sell the cover for 10x FMV even though it'll probably be worth less, adjusted for inflation, in 30 years than it is worth today.  But, people paying big bucks today for nostalgia should be realistic that your nostalgia is not going to be the nostalgia of a younger person 30 years from now.  Almost nothing is immune.  181K euros or pounds or whatever for Star-Lord's helmet is going to look even dumber in 30 years than it does now.  

[BCarter27]

I think the more you level-up in this hobby (dollars-per-piece-wise), you start experiencing a form of projected buyer's remorse. You drop $X,000 on a piece today that you love and would never part with even if the bottom fell out of the hobby. Then, tomorrow when someone else does the same thing on an item you don't vibe with, all that bottled up guilt spews out on them. You have to be immune to your own buyer's remorse, because you are in too deep.

I know this is true because it happened this month when I got cantankerous for no reason whatsoever about Michael Turner prices.

[vodou]

9 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

I think the more you level-up in this hobby (dollars-per-piece-wise), you start experiencing a form of projected buyer's remorse. You drop $X,000 on a piece today that you love and would never part with even if the bottom fell out of the hobby.

This "would never part with" aspect...how much of that is the inherent value (separate from market price on any given day) to the collector and how much (if any) is myopic loss aversion?

[BCarter27]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

This "would never part with" aspect...how much of that is the inherent value (separate from market price on any given day) to the collector and how much (if any) is myopic loss aversion?

I think the two reinforce each other -- in collectibles more than other types of auctions (with the exception of maybe personal real estate. Buyers can get VERY emotional about where they build their nest.) But once the inherent value side loses ground in your own mind, you start thinking about selling and taking the hit.

Another question to consider... Are those of us invested in the hobby (both financially and intellectually -- by coming here to discuss it, podcasting about it, doing write-ups and research, watching out for fakes, etc.) upset when someone makes a market-skewing, unsustainable bid? Do we applaud at the end of a vigorous, record-breaking auction as a sign of community solidarity or just to quell our own fears?

We all want slow growth, right? So when someone creates an outlier, people get nervous.

[BCarter27]

13 hours ago, delekkerste said:

the popularity of franchises will fall by the wayside over time faster than you've ever seen in the past given the hypergrowth of content.    

One of the items in the auction that caught my eye as particularly iconic was the Trinity costume from The Matrix. That franchise was HUGE at the time, almost cult-like. It hit at the right time during the growth of online communities online and MMORPGs. But it's been pretty quiet since.

While I think the Star Lord helmet is indeed over-priced, you can make a solid case for GOTG being a cornerstone of the MCU -- a franchise that might NEVER go away because of Disney's backing.

I think someone over in one of the movie threads said they were astonished/dismayed that this generation of fanboys' & fangirls' nostalgic touchstones won't be classics such as the Fantastic Four, but rather Ant-Man and Rocket Racoon?!

Star Lord's helmet might lose value in the same way that George Reeves screen-worn Superman costumes will. (Or have already? Maybe someone could weigh in on this who is more knowledgeable.) We all still love Superman. The franchise will keep going longer than a Tarzan or Matrix or Ghostbusters. But the generation gap will be there. I think these examples will cool, but not as rapidly as some "dead" franchises. How many of us Gen-Xers would pickup an Adams or Kirby or even an Infantino or Sprang if the price was right, just for its historic value? It's not "our" Batman/Spider-Man/Flash, but it's part of the lineage. So we would hold up the floor in a way that maybe the Ghostbusters or Matrix crowd might not.

[SquareChaos]

9 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

One of the items in the auction that caught my eye as particularly iconic was the Trinity costume from The Matrix. That franchise was HUGE at the time, almost cult-like. It hit at the right time during the growth of online communities online and MMORPGs. But it's been pretty quiet since.

While I think the Star Lord helmet is indeed over-priced, you can make a solid case for GOTG being a cornerstone of the MCU -- a franchise that might NEVER go away because of Disney's backing.

I think someone over in one of the movie threads said they were astonished/dismayed that this generation of fanboys' & fangirls' nostalgic touchstones won't be classics such as the Fantastic Four, but rather Ant-Man and Rocket Racoon?!

Star Lord's helmet might lose value in the same way that George Reeves screen-worn Superman costumes will. (Or have already? Maybe someone could weigh in on this who is more knowledgeable.) We all still love Superman. The franchise will keep going longer than a Tarzan or Matrix or Ghostbusters. But the generation gap will be there. I think these examples will cool, but not as rapidly as some "dead" franchises. How many of us Gen-Xers would pickup an Adams or Kirby or even an Infantino or Sprang if the price was right, just for its historic value? It's not "our" Batman/Spider-Man/Flash, but it's part of the lineage. So we would hold up the floor in a way that maybe the Ghostbusters or Matrix crowd might not.

I'm sure many thought the western would never die. Personally, I think the general movie going population are already beginning to experience super hero fatigue. I think the studios, following the Deadpool movie, realize it as well - they're changing the formulas now in an attempt to keep things fresh.

[PhilipB2k17]

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 8:36 PM, delekkerste said:

Maybe, maybe not.  33 years of staying power just means that the Gen Xers who loved the movie as teenagers are now the 40 and 50-somethings who plonk down big money for this kind of stuff.  That could very well only be the half-life/half the cycle of the film's popularity - in the year 2050 (another 33 years from now, the original film being 33 years old now), will there still be a fervor for this film from 1984?  Frankly, I doubt it, especially given the literally exponential growth in content we've seen - mark my words, the popularity of franchises will fall by the wayside over time faster than you've ever seen in the past given the hypergrowth of content.    

Those of us in our 30s-50s now grew up in an era where it was pretty easy to catch up with almost all the big TV shows and, especially movies (both past and present up to that time).  Pretty much everyone in my generation has seen, for example, the three original Star Wars films.  I don't know why people are at all surprised when they hear of a teenager or 20-something or even early 30-something person not having watched __________________ (Star Wars, The Godfather, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, Casablanca or whatever iconic, all-time classic from earlier decades).  As the years pass, more and more and more and more people will not have seen these films!!  How can they?  There are only so many hours in a day, and the amount of content out there is exploding at literally an exponential pace.  Someone born today does not have the luxury as we did of living in an era of much less content and being able to somewhat keep pace with new content as it came out over the years/decades.  I bet the average American born in 2017, by the time they are 30, will not have seen nor have any care about a ton of movies from the '70s and '80s and '90s that are so revered today.  Even with remakes and reboots, I'll make a bet all day long and twice on Sunday that the films I revered as a youth, like a Ghostbusters, Top Gun, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, etc. will be dramatically less popular 30 years from now than today, as will props from these kind of films (at least adjusted for inflation).  I think the staying power of something like the Guardians franchise, over the long-run, simply won't be there.  Will Guardians be as beloved in 2047 (33 years after the first film) as Ghostbusters is in 2017?  I doubt it.  Maybe more people will love it than Ghostbusters at the time, but, it will be well on its way to fading into history by then.  No one in 2047 will be surprised if someone born in 2017 has never seen Guardians 1 or 2.  

Hey, I'm all for buying whatever you love.  I'd love Maverick's helmet from Top Gun, for example.  I love Uncanny X-Men #172 more than anyone else in the world probably and wouldn't sell the cover for 10x FMV even though it'll probably be worth less, adjusted for inflation, in 30 years than it is worth today.  But, people paying big bucks today for nostalgia should be realistic that your nostalgia is not going to be the nostalgia of a younger person 30 years from now.  Almost nothing is immune.  181K euros or pounds or whatever for Star-Lord's helmet is going to look even dumber in 30 years than it does now.  

I don't disagree with the general thrust of this comment, but in the case of certain pop culture properties, its generational. Yes, Gen Exers really liked Ghost Busters. But, they also got Ghostbusters DVDs for their kids, or saved iton Netflix, or a DVR of it gets shown on cable (which it does regularly. In fact, both I and II were on this past weekend).

So, love for it is passed from parents to kids. It's also passed from just being a franchise, into being firmly entrenched in popular culture. A ghostbusters uniform iconic.

 

[PhilipB2k17]

20 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

I'm sure many thought the western would never die. Personally, I think the general movie going population are already beginning to experience super hero fatigue. I think the studios, following the Deadpool movie, realize it as well - they're changing the formulas now in an attempt to keep things fresh.

True. And generic Western props probably won't command much. But, what if it's the Lone Ranger's mask from the classic series? Or John Wayne's eyepatch from True Grit? Or Clint Eastwood's poncho from Fist Full of Dollars?

Westerns may not be what they once were as a genre. But some of those movie props are iconic.