Sean Murphy selling new Batman White Knight art tomorrow. 0

[comicwiz]

On 07/12/2017 at 12:47 PM, staffman said:

I have such conflicting feelings on all of this.  On the one hand I commend Sean on getting top dollar for his interiors for a book that is coming out currently.  That is quite a feat that he pulled off.  However, I'm concerned that his prices are so high that he could potentially change the pricing market even more for original art out there.  Who's to say the next artist doing a good run on Batman doesn't take this kind of lead and starts moving that needle further north.  Prices always go up on pretty much everything as we all know, but to push that high that quickly instead of letting the market guide the pricing path just bothers me.  That's all speculation on my part.  I have no hard data to back that concern, so I could be completely off about that, but I can't shake that feeling that this doesn't have an upside for anyone outside of Sean and the fans who truly love this art and want to keep it.

Yep, 20 years from now pricing today.

[comicwiz]

 

On 08/12/2017 at 10:24 AM, JadeGiant said:

On 07/12/2017 at 7:05 PM, staffman said:

Really that's the best way to collect anything.  A lot of things in the world ebb and flow and what is hot now, will probably cool off down the road.  Art can definitely be an outlier of that scenario.  The da Vinci painting that went for WAY more money than projected is proof that art can definitely defy the odds.  I believe everyone is in agreement on the fact that Sean has found a way to command the prices he wants and he's able to secure it, so bravo to him on doing it.  Hell,  I'm sure any of us would love to be able to quadruple our pay for doing what we do.  Maybe Sean should teach me a class on negotiating.  Regardless, I just really hope the people buying this art are true fans, because it just seems to be a LOT of hype on a book that for now is getting a luke warm reception and buying these pages in hopes that you will cash in on Sean's work is ,to me, a long shot at best.  Here's to the collector that lands that da Vinci level comic page though!

I don't begrudge SGM for asking his prices and getting them as that is his right in an open trade market. Same goes for Capullo. I am very happy that the character I focus my collection around doesn’t were all black (or very dark grey) as I would have to admit it would be frustrating to see artists charging the apparently exorbitant Batman tax on new art, especially if I really enjoyed the story and art. I buy what I love and am willing to pay a little more if it is at the top of my wish list but the prices I am seeing are just too much. I’d walk away as my rational sense would prevail over my collecting passion. I refuse to look at art as in investment – that’s a trap far too easy to fall into when convincing yourself you have a rational reason to make a passionate and ill-advised purchase. Been there, done that.

Apart from the speculative side, do you think the way "doublers" in the OA hobby have behaved has forced artists to ensure their prices leave no room for flipping?

One only needs to look at what happened in the signature/autograph market, and how artists have modified either their pricing and/or their practices to ensure they get a piece of the action. And when comparing the economics of attending a show, paying a witness and/or artist for an autograph, grading, shipping, we are talking a fraction of the profit take when you look at what OA flipping makes for the profiteers, and all they are doing is taking the page out of the packaging, scanning/photographing it, and reselling it. Some don't even take it out from the box, they just drop ship and use scans from the previous seller.

It would be naive to think serial flippers haven't played a part in all this. These are the ones who go around telling stories, of how much they love the art, how much it will enhance their collection, or that they are already paying top retail on the piece, only to turn around and sell it for double, sometimes triple what they paid a short time after they purchase the pages.

Paying a price for something you thoroughly appreciate and can see enjoying spending it's afterlife framed on your wall is one thing. Seeing a piece slip through your fingers only to reappear at double or triple the price is not something anyone should have to put up with, to say nothing of the problem the artist would likely have with this profiteering practice as s/he's the one creating the page. In this context, I don't begrudge an artist making sure it stays put in someone's collection with no potential upside for 20 years, but I do begrudge the "doublers" in this hobby who spoil it for the rest of us. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by comicwiz

[Panelfan1]

12 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

 

Apart from the speculative side, do you think the way "doublers" in the OA hobby have behaved has forced artists to ensure their prices leave no room for flipping?

One only needs to look at what happened in the signature/autograph market, and how artists have modified either their pricing and/or their practices to ensure they get a piece of the action. And when comparing the economics of attending a show, paying a witness and/or artist for an autograph, grading, shipping, we are talking a fraction of the profit take when you look at what OA flipping makes for the profiteers, and all they are doing is taking the page out of the packaging, scanning/photographing it, and reselling it. Some don't even take it out from the box, they just drop ship and use scans from the previous seller.

It would be naive to think serial flippers haven't played a part in all this. These are the ones who go around telling stories, of how much they love the art, how much it will enhance their collection, or that they are already paying top retail on the piece, only to turn around and sell it for double, sometimes triple what they paid a short time after they purchase the pages.

Paying a price for something you thoroughly appreciate and can see enjoying spending it's afterlife framed on your wall is one thing. Seeing a piece slip through your fingers only to reappear at double or triple the price is not something anyone should have to put up with. In this context, I don't begrudge an artist making sure it stays put in someone's collection with no potential upside for 20 years, but I do begrudge the "doublers" in this hobby who spoil it for the rest of us. 

Wow.  I wish I had the skills to double art prices. I have had to sell some pieces to pay for new acquistions and averaging out - over several pieces I typically have juat about broken even.

[vodou]

8 hours ago, comicwiz said:

In this context, I don't begrudge an artist making sure it stays put in someone's collection with no potential upside for 20 years, but I do begrudge the "doublers" in this hobby who spoil it for the rest of us. 

Who are these doublers? In all seriousness, the AH! con sketch market aside, there hasn't been a ton of flippability* on comic art ever imo. Too small a world. As soon as one or two guys figure out that an artist is selling too cheap and start flipping, word gets back to the artist and he stops selling or takes on a rep. Or those that buy the flips seek out the artist to deal direct and the whole thing collapses on itself. These scenarios...I've seen play out a hundred times in thirty years. Doublers? I've yet to meet one that lasted a full year.

 

*Talking new art direct from an artist. There's never a shortage of uniformed or weak-willed collectors to take advantage of...if you're so inclined.

[comicwiz]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

*Talking new art direct from an artist. There's never a shortage of uniformed or weak-willed collectors to take advantage of...if you're so inclined.

That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to artists taking their cues from these dynamics to guide their pricing, which ensures there's no room for profitability.  Based on the way some of this stuff is priced, I can only assume they don't want it to sell for a long time. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. There's dealers I've known about for decades that won't sell you anything if they even think you're going to turn around and resell.

[vodou]

12 hours ago, comicwiz said:

That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to artists taking their cues from these dynamics to guide their pricing, which ensures there's no room for profitability.  Based on the way some of this stuff is priced, I can only assume they don't want it to sell for a long time. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. There's dealers I've known about for decades that won't sell you anything if they even think you're going to turn around and resell.

Yeah I knew what you meant and to me: it's sort of chicken and egg.

If the market will pay (or bear, if you prefer) 2x, 3x, 5x, whatever against your x (whatever you think is right or can afford), rather quickly the arbitrage of anything <2x will be taken up (by somebody that views the risk/reward of doing so to fall in their favor). That's just how it works, unless we're talking about a command economy. Your complaint, imo, isn't with doublers or artists that try to mimic them...it's with the market in which having more (the most) money trumps getting there first. Because that's what your really want: to pay less than market, and getting there first is generally the way one wins that game.

Hey we all want to win that tug of war...but the artists (or doublers or anybody else) can/will price themselves right out of doing any business too by serially forcing the market to play at >2x. This happens all the time and those that are flexible (mentally or financially) will lower prices to and probably under equilibrium...to put food on the table, if nothing else. Unlike collectors, flippers, doublers, etc though...artists risk not just burning* a piece or two but their very reputation in a perception-based price model where lower price is better except when it comes to luxury goods. Anybody want to argue that original comic art is not a luxury good?

Your complaint is with anybody and everybody that would pay more than you for anything**...the tremendous assumption being made that your definition of and basis for arriving at that definition of x price is correct and theirs is not. Every** single time. Sure (I think) I know everything (lol) but even I don't have the hubris required to stand behind that sort of thinking. This Sean Murphy business will fall apart as soon as more than one or two guys try to sell more than one or two pieces and finds there's no market at/above what they paid or takes a 50% hit at no reserve auction. Again, that harms the collectors to the extent of their "investment". It harms Sean Murphy much, much more: to the extent that this is all*** he can do...draw his way out of poverty and bankruptcy. And if he can't do that, or can't do it for enough to live on...?

 

*By pricing too high, no takers, then pricing too low to make up for it, thus destroying the very valuable illusion of demand scarcity.

**In the context of hobbies and hobby items you cannot or will not afford to purchase.

***Again, in the context of this board...I'm sure he can go flip burgers or work for his brother-in-law (or whatever) in survival mode to make ends meet, at least for a time.

[comicwiz]

59 minutes ago, vodou said:

Your complaint, imo, isn't with doublers or artists that try to mimic them...it's with the market in which having more (the most) money trumps getting there first.

I can see how and why you arrived at that determination, but it isn't. I do well getting there first and asserting my position. My issue beyond the costs to collectors, are the tactics used. Market resistence does play a small part in course correcting the more extreme cases, but in my opinion a necessary reputational hit hasn't occurred with some of the people who continue to do this because no one wants to make waves. To ignore or assume it's a small part of the hobby is not something I care to opine on, however this activity does come with costs to us all, and to keep it contextually relevant to this post, I'm saying artists observe it and take their cues. Those who don't want to be taken advantage of price their work accordingly. Nuff said.

Edited December 21, 2017 by comicwiz

[vodou]

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

I do well getting there first and asserting my position.

Not sure what you mean here, so I'll ask for clarification (if I've got it wrong). Because my reading of it is that you do well by buying under market value from artists that don't know the market or intentionally* under-price for other reasons. You're doing well (under market) comes at the direct expense of others (artists) doing less than well. Unless you're suggesting that you're buying up the under-priced art and then advertising it (in your collection, if not re-selling) is value-added in some way for the artist...advertising the value of these artists of being included as part of your prestigious and enviable collection to the world, ala Charlie Saatchi? Probably not.

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

My issue beyond the costs to collectors, are the tactics used. Market resistence does play a small part in course correcting the more extreme cases, but in my opinion a necessary reputational hit hasn't occurred with some of the people who continue to do this because no one wants to make waves.

Hmm, tactics? Such as? (Beyond what I've already discussed.) Market resistance plays a large part actually, as price is set at the margin and when the wall goes up it doesn't break down easy. That's the reputational burn right there.

The rest of what you're pointing to actually reinforces my point that the market is broader than you're allowing, which is a market price miscalculation on your part. "The Market", if it's free, includes arb, includes hoarding, includes artificial scarcity, includes false demand/collusion (fake "sold!" announcements, "sales" among a circle/cabal), includes protection bidding/buying, etc etc. "The Market" is just a mechanism to shift risk from one party to another. Sean Murphy's risk (as the example here) is a whole heaping stack of intrinsically devalued** paper because somebody already marked one side up, and considerably so. This stack of used paper can't be returned to the store and is, at best, intrinsically worth only half what it was when he got it. That he can shift that risk to somebody else (The Market) for much more than 1/2 price is amazing and wonderful...for Sean. And he should do so as much as he can as logn as he doesn't incurr greater risk along the way than reward. Not sure he understand his other risk/s though...as previously mentioned. Separating collectors from others is a false choice: the market is the market, inclusive of collectors and (however you wish to define them) non-collectors and even non-wave-makers (?!!) Sean knows no such distinction, as long as the money is green (and why should he, as long as he's not increasing his risk? I think he is, but pulling in "other" artists, the global body of comic artists...not everybody is.) Adam Smith's Invisible Hand (aka Economy 101)...everybody's self-interest is The Market.

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

To ignore or assume it's a small part of the hobby is not something I care to opine on, however this activity does come with costs to us all, and to keep it contextually relevant to this post, I'm saying artists observe it and take their cues. Those who don't want to be taken advantage of price their work accordingly. Nuff said.

Too bad, because you surely do have an opinion and I love contemplating and testing points of view different than my own. Because I actually don't know everything, this is how I learn. My present opinion, thus unchallenged is that all of the above is a very large part of the hobby, "IT" is the hobby as long as there is A Market versus artists tossing these things in the dumpster for disposal excepting if someone cares to risk falling in (stinky dirty diapers all about) to pull them out.

 

*An infamous example was Adam Hughes con sketches at source for $100 (when I started), later $200, and even later $400 when they were flipping on eBay for $500, then $1000, then $3k-$5k. He wanted to put those pieces in the hands of (so-called) collectors that didn't have the disposable or desire to dispose of money (which knows no "collectors" per se) at fair market levels. Unfortunately he had a really hard time separating collectors from reluctantly selling sad cases (my dog has cancer and needs TREATMENT!!) from arbitrageurs (the market is the market) and eventually gave up and began auctioning spots on his pre-show list directly on eBay. (This all a number of years old information, 2011/12/13ish?, I have no idea what he does or what his "market" is like today!) This is what generally happens to all under-market situations, either the source wises up or the arbitrageurs clean the source out. In all cases the arb opportunity doesn't persist for very long. And that's where "early" trumps "fmv".

**No longer plain white on both sides.

[SquareChaos]

I've been interested in economics since high school - I've done a lot of reading (for a layman) about the historic and current arguments in the field, and one thing that I've always found very interesting about it is that people speak of the market, and forces, and spirit animals, and other associated concepts as if economics is as highly predictive as physics... when the facts couldn't be more in the other direction. Like my own field of software development, economics is a mix of art and science and it's predictive powers are overblown (but still the best thing we have - I'm not science-denying here). There are a few safe areas and tenants - price elasticity, how markets react to monopolies, the powerful concepts of supply and demand - but outside of that or very simple models to simple problems, you often see highly complex models that depend the "rational actor" to save the day. As we've found over and over again, that guy ain't always so rational.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, SquareChaos said:

...that guy ain't always so rational.

Cue Dan Ariely and similar behavioral economists

 

[comicwiz]

4 hours ago, vodou said:

Not sure what you mean here, so I'll ask for clarification

You stated "it's with the market in which having more (the most) money trumps getting there first." which I bolded when I made the statement I did. I may have been involved in too many deals where the amount being offered is the most insignificant aspect to even consider "most money" as anything resembling the factor that resoundingly trumps the competition.  What's far more important (to me anyway) is anticipating the "tactics" of the competition (which is my "asserting position" comment) and structuring a deal that is seamless, gets the money to the person the fastest, without exposing yourself to the undue risks of handing money over before goods are exchanged. That's it in a nutshell, and to not veer too far from the original topic, I can give more details via PM.

Edited December 21, 2017 by comicwiz

[vodou]

26 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

You stated "it's with the market in which having more (the most) money trumps getting there first." which I bolded when I made the statement I did. I may have been involved in too many deals where the amount being offered is the most insignificant aspect to even consider "most money" as anything resembling the factor that resoundingly trumps the competition.  What's far more important (to me anyway) is anticipating the "tactics" of the competition (which is my "asserting position" comment) and structuring a deal that is seamless, gets the money to the person the fastest, without exposing yourself to the undue risks of handing money over before goods are exchanged. That's it in a nutshell, and to not veer too far from the original topic, I can give more details via PM.

I'll admit I'm pretty confused, and that's probably because you're being intentionally vague. Please do PM me the details, I am curious and wonder if there is something for me to learn here. There may well be! That aside, my guess (pre-PM) is we're talking about approaching older artists that are sitting on much of their lifetime output and how that may be handled in a gentlemanly way (good for all) versus a strip-mine scenario or weak consignment deal where nothing ever really sells (no out of pocket but also no action for the consignor/Estate/family etc). And if that's what you are doing, you're trying to compete with various others of (often) much lower integrity. Maybe shooting too much on guesses alone here but that's all I can come up with which isn't -imo- directly related* to Sean Murphy going tothemarketdownthestreetforsomeCRAZY on his own pricing (which I'm certain will blow up in his face, even if he is rolling his newfound wealth into top-tier "investment grade" comic art by other guys...he's shorting small cap to fund going long large cap...okay, I guess? But I bet that blows up in his face too...and it'll be a hindsight is 20/20 double-loser!)

Imagine...trashing your own nascent market to buy all-time highs in somebody else's market. Ugh.

 

*Except you're making the case I think that Murphy watched other artists sell badly, he's trying to fix that and others are watching him, so the whole market is heading toward a pull-forward price structure. Could be. The market is always bigger than the manipulator...that why these "things" never persist for long...but perhaps longer than one can stay solvent!

[SquareChaos]

3 minutes ago, vodou said:

Maybe shooting too much on guesses alone here but that's all I can come up with which isn't -imo- directly related* to Sean Murphy going tothemarketdownthestreetforsomeCRAZY on his own pricing (which I'm certain will blow up in his face, even if he is rolling his newfound wealth into top-tier "investment grade" comic art by other guys...he's shorting small cap to fund going long large cap...okay, I guess? But I bet that blows up in his face too...and it'll be a hindsight is 20/20 double-loser!)

As the cost of cash rises over the next few years isn't it natural to assume a lot of the money available in OA will move elsewhere? I think once that starts to happen we might see funny money purchases dry up some. Just spitballing.

[vodou]

2 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

As the cost of cash rises over the next few years isn't it natural to assume a lot of the money available in OA will move elsewhere?

Yes.

[vodou]

I mentioned James Altucher in a different thread yesterday. Banging around on his site I saw this and thought wow Sean Murphy could surely benefit from this:

53) What’s the best way to sell anything?

Show arbitrage: If they pay X, now they are buying something worth X * Y. That is the ONLY way to sell.

from: The Ultimate Cheat Sheet to Starting and Running Your Own Business

The "to sell anything" link above is a pretty good read too  

 

 

[Lucky Baru]

I came into an OA forum and an econ class broke out.  Maybe we can start chatting about ROI, capital allocation, investment options and the other fun stuff that the hobby like to chat about now.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Lucky Baru

[vodou]

1 minute ago, Lucky Baru said:

I came into an OA forum and an econ class broke out.  Maybe we can start chatting about ROI, capital allocation, investment options and the other fun stuff that the hobby like to chat about now.

You were gone for a while. I noticed. Did anybody else? If so, it wasn't posted here.

[Lucky Baru]

15 minutes ago, vodou said:

You were gone for a while. I noticed. Did anybody else? If so, it wasn't posted here.

I see you haven't change either.

Here, maybe this will help you get the Sean Murphy art thread back to the subject you want it to be...

Edited December 22, 2017 by Lucky Baru

[Panelfan1]

So gallery 9 in france is selling a page. They are asking 4000 euro.  

Havent read the comic - but is the market already there for this item at this price? Or is it simply that SGM started prices high - so 2ndry sellers need to charge super high prices to justify it.  The art is only a month or 2 old. Interior panel page.

Gallery 9 link

[Comic Art Factory]

Your question answers itself. 

Happy 2018.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Comic Art Factory