Interesting article on art collecting and investing 0

[malvin]

This isn't about investor money coming into art, but more of a professional investor that also collects.

He is talking about fine art, but many things apply to comic art.  Many things said were not new to me, but one thing I never thought of was considering who else was buying art I collect

link to CNBC

Malvin

[delekkerste]

55 minutes ago, malvin said:

This isn't about investor money coming into art, but more of a professional investor that also collects.

He is talking about fine art, but many things apply to comic art.  Many things said were not new to me, but one thing I never thought of was considering who else was buying art I collect

link to CNBC

Malvin

I've been to his home.  He and his wife's collection is uh-maze-ing. 

On my way back from seeing their art, I distinctly recall thinking how ridiculous people in our hobby are hanging up photocopies of their art for fear of theft and/or light when this guy has hundreds of millions of dollars of artwork out on open display.  Not in the dark and not with an army of security guards protecting it.  

[Will_K]

19 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Not in the dark and not with an army of security guards protecting it.  

True.  But I'm sure getting in to see that collection (even without guards) is not as easy as picking one of our homes at random and getting to see what we may have on our walls. 

For me, nothing on my walls.

[JadeGiant]

Good read, thanks for sharing. I follow much of this advice inasmuch as I buy what I love, don't buy for investment, and my collection gets more focused with each passing year in terms of what artists I buy. I also found it interesting about knowing who else collects with the same focus. As I continue to narrow focus, I have met new people with similar interests and they collect similarly. I guess my collection will be worth billions come time for retirement. Cool. 

[JadeGiant]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

On my way back from seeing their art, I distinctly recall thinking how ridiculous people in our hobby are hanging up photocopies of their art for fear of theft and/or light when this guy has hundreds of millions of dollars of artwork out on open display.  Not in the dark and not with an army of security guards protecting it.  

Really good point. I have caught myself thinking along these lines at times. 

[Panelfan1]

I found the article interesting

 

When you read this advice:

 

Buy what you love

"The first thing that goes through my mind is 'does this give me goosebumps?'" he said. "Is it something I will want to look at every day and with the same enthusiasm a year from now, or two years from now. And how will it fare in comparison to other great artists next to it?"

 

As an art collector it makes sense.

The problem I had was that the article mentioned :

He has a keen eye for great art that's also made for incredible investments. He bought one of Andy Warhol's famous "soup-can" paintings in 1996 for $340,000. It's now likely worth over $9 million.

So.. while not judging the investment angle. .. I find it hard to believe he gets goosebumps from an image of a can of soup (unless we are talking the price of the art.)  340m to 9mil in 20 years is goosebump material.

Now it's easy to joke around based on limited knowledge. So happy to admit I may have it totally wrong. Gene would know better.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Panelfan1

[malvin]

6 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I've been to his home.  He and his wife's collection is uh-maze-ing. 

On my way back from seeing their art, I distinctly recall thinking how ridiculous people in our hobby are hanging up photocopies of their art for fear of theft and/or light when this guy has hundreds of millions of dollars of artwork out on open display.  Not in the dark and not with an army of security guards protecting it.  

Yes, but I bet you none of his pieces were done with sharpie!

Malvin

[Pete Marino]

That doesn't seem that impressive.

in 1996 if you spent 340k on comic art, I bet your collection would be worth a lot more than 9 Mil now.

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, Panelfan1 said:

So.. while not judging the investment angle. .. I find it hard to believe he gets goosebumps from an image of a can of soup (unless we are talking the price of the art.)  340m to 9mil in 20 years is goosebump material.

Now it's easy to joke around based on limited knowledge. So happy to admit I may have it totally wrong. Gene would know better.

I think it goes beyond just the literal content to the historical importance and influence of both the artist and the piece, and their place in art history.  I visited their home in a group setting, but, got to speak with both of them and found that they were both very knowledgeable and passionate about art and art history in a way that I bet a lot of finance types are not.  I'm sure that Warhol's soup can gives them goosebumps in much the same way that "Master Race" thrills a true comic art aficionado in a way that a layman or, even an OA collector who thinks that '90s drek is da bomb, cannot appreciate. 

 

1 hour ago, Pete Marino said:

That doesn't seem that impressive.

in 1996 if you spent 340k on comic art, I bet your collection would be worth a lot more than 9 Mil now.

 

Making more than 25x your money in 22 years in what was already a very established market (albeit one at a cyclical low) doesn't seem that impressive?   

Comparing returns from undeveloped markets* to those from very developed markets is like comparing apples and crocodiles, at least not without adjusting for risk/capital deployed (which is why, for example, comparing crypto returns to stock returns in 2017 was so asinine).  More likely, a savvy OA collector might have spent $3.4K on comic art in 1996, maybe $30.4K for one of the future BSDs, and be sitting on art (if they managed to keep it all, which they probably didn't) worth a hell of a lot less than what that Warhol is worth.  For the business school types out there:  NPV > IRR.  Better to make 25x on $340K deployed than 35x on $3.4K deployed.   

Not to mention, if you bought $340K of, say, Pogo comic strips in 1996...you're probably underwater right now.  

 

 

 

* Just because the hobby had been around for a long time by 1996 doesn't mean the OA market was very developed or that pricing was much removed beyond its infancy.  Even today, I still hear people arguing that the OA hobby is still in its very early innings of development.  I don't agree, but, for argument's sake, if that's true, then 1996 was practically the Stone Age by comparison.

Edited October 23, 2018 by delekkerste

[adamstrange]

8 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I've been to his home.  He and his wife's collection is uh-maze-ing. 

On my way back from seeing their art, I distinctly recall thinking how ridiculous people in our hobby are hanging up photocopies of their art for fear of theft and/or light when this guy has hundreds of millions of dollars of artwork out on open display.  Not in the dark and not with an army of security guards protecting it.  

Well, if all I had was " Picassos and de Koonings and Bacon's " I wouldn't worry about them fading either. 

My comic art on the hand, is an entirely different matter.

[delekkerste]

3 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

Well, if all I had was " Picassos and de Koonings and Bacon's " I wouldn't worry about them fading either. 

My comic art on the hand, is an entirely different matter.

No one is saying frame your pieces cheaply and put them where they will be in direct sunlight for long periods.  I get my pieces framed with UV-filtering plexiglass (museum-quality UV plexi in some cases) and keep my pieces away from direct sunlight.  I'm confident that the UV plexi does what it's supposed to do and can handle indirect/incidental light exposure.  Obviously I wouldn't risk putting any marker-inked pages up on the wall, even under UV plexi, 

I'm staring right now at my Alex Schomburg Green Hornet cover, which has been framed and hung on my wall (in a room with two windows) for six years.  And still looks exactly the same.  I think these paranoid attitudes about fading and security can only hinder comic art ever becoming more widely embraced; why would people who collect other kinds of art want to get into a hobby where the prevailing attitude is that it's too risky to display your art, unless it's in a dark, windowless room under armed guard and/or high-tech surveillance?  I don't think I could enjoy this hobby if I had to put all my all art in a secure location while only being able to stare at photocopies (as more than a few people seem to do...  )

[adamstrange]

38 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

unless it's in a dark, windowless room under armed guard and/or high-tech surveillance?

How'd you know?????

Seriously, though, the last research I saw on UV protection was that it was barely better than standard glass.  Fading happens very, very gradually so a 6 year period that could cause fading would likely occur so gradually that it is not noticed.

[Pickie]

11 hours ago, malvin said:

Many things said were not new to me, but one thing I never thought of was considering who else was buying art I collect

link to CNBC

Malvin

Yeah, that's a good point. Buy what other collectors and museums buy, but you've got to love it, so that it's not for the reason of competition or of investment. Easy enough.

 

[ESeffinga]

https://www.wired.com/2018/10/geeks-guide-dungeons-dragons-art/?fbclid=IwAR0H0A8krwJBE6wBbKva0rr0ckM3KF01UPhTEH_1nmsaqKSwTFtYtxwBb7g

 

Here’s one about D&D art...

[Rick2you2]

On 10/22/2018 at 3:27 PM, delekkerste said:

I've been to his home.  He and his wife's collection is uh-maze-ing. 

On my way back from seeing their art, I distinctly recall thinking how ridiculous people in our hobby are hanging up photocopies of their art for fear of theft and/or light when this guy has hundreds of millions of dollars of artwork out on open display.  Not in the dark and not with an army of security guards protecting it.  

I disagree on the subject of light. Natural light fades inks. I don't think it is nearly as deleterious on paint. 

Also, I consider my collection personal. I do have art on display, but very little of it is comic art. Just more general stuff. 

[BCarter27]

19 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Natural light fades inks. I don't think it is nearly as deleterious on paint.

That's true. Paint is much more light-fast. And UV glass/plexi has been proven to not protect as much as advertised.

I have stuff up in my small office with windows, but no direct sunlight day after day.

Back to the article... The "who else collects this artist" bit was a great point. Also makes you think about who your greater fool is going to be later.

I always grimace a little at "collect what you love" regarding anything over about $500. Imo, it really should be "from the pool of high-liquidity artists, buy what you love otherwise you can kiss that money goodbye."

Anyone know where or when this guy's gallery is opening in the city? I don't see much online.

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

I always grimace a little at "collect what you love" regarding anything over about $500. Imo, it really should be "from the pool of high-liquidity artists, buy what you love otherwise you can kiss that money goodbye."

Good general advice. But I don't sell what I buy, so it doesn't matter what I pay. I just assume it is an unrecoupable expense.

[BCarter27]

4 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Good general advice. But I don't sell what I buy, so it doesn't matter what I pay. I just assume it is an unrecoupable expense.

And that's a legitimate path as long as your eyes are open. I hesitated to post the above, but the OP article was angled on "investing".

[JadeGiant]

I tend to look at buying art (and any other collectible) like this: the price you pay is for how much you will enjoy owning/viewing/appreciating the item. If I buy a commission for $400 (like one I had done at Heroes this year as example), I am OK with the price and the possibility of how it will turn out and write off the cost as part of the hobby. If I get money back out of it someday great, if not, that is fine as well as I don’t really have a plan for this stuff 20 years from now – likely some will get sold and some will go to my kids if they appreciate it. For larger purchases, ROI comes into the picture of course. But not from the perspective that I need to see a gain as I would in an investment. If I buy a piece of art for $3K I would only do it because I love the art and plan to keep it. If I would sell, I am OK with some loss on the piece as the difference would be the cost of owning the piece and the enjoyment would be worth it to me. All that said, I want every piece of art I buy to be worth more money than I paid, and significantly more would be great … but that is not an expectation I hold out for. I know I am on the plus side of many pieces I have bought and on the minus side on many pieces I have bought and that is OK because it is a hobby. Check back with me in 20 years if/when I am selling and I will let you know how I feel if comic art has become nearly worthless and I take a bath on everything I own.

Edited October 26, 2018 by JadeGiant

[delekkerste]

8 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

I always grimace a little at "collect what you love" regarding anything over about $500. Imo, it really should be "from the pool of high-liquidity artists, buy what you love otherwise you can kiss that money goodbye."

There are no guarantees with any of this stuff.  Though, if you start off buying something that is highly-coveted/high-liquidity, it has a better chance of staying that way than something that is not later achieving that status.

I agree, though - if you "buy what you love", and you have a lot of non-mainstream tastes, and/or you collect a lot of modern OA, commissions, etc. (any art where there is almost always far more supply than demand), your chance of blowing yourself up financially is very high.  Not that it might not be worth it in some cases if one's love of the art transcends any dollar depreciation.