Forbes article 2 2

[Bronty]

16 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

That's what you got from my  you about MTG?   I've actually barely given any thought to MTG other than knowing that you about it is good fun.  

I don't GAF about that.    But since we have these conversations every month I can't help but see that you're willfully blind to anything that you aren't yourself interested in.   If you believe in generational changeover as a driving force, then own it.   Apply the logic consistently.      Ie if you really believe that the reason you were wrong all these years about comic art prices is due to those kids growing up, then you ought to be quite bullish on video games, mtg, and pokemon.   

But, since you'll never admit to that, I'm forced to think that you're full of poop when you say you've learned anything from it.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Bronty

[batman_fan]

I have been seriously collecting comics since the 1970s none stop. I have watched prices go insane with a few periods of what I would call pauses. The amount of material coming to market these days is staggering and I can’t imagine it slowing down as collectors age out. To this point, it seems the market is doing a decent job of absorbing it in general at high prices. The real question is how much longer will the buyers be able to continue this?  I have no idea but it seems like as the collectors continue aging out with large collections it will be hard to have prices continue to go up without some new deep pockets. I know if I were starting today, I would only chase keys. There is just no way I could ever afford to buy my Batman run at today’s prices. 

[Bronty]

36 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

You certainly don't see me starting any MTG crash threads or otherwise "applying the same thinking".  

Also, I'm allowed to think something is stupid but not think the price is going to crash - just witness the U-turn I did on Bitcoin earlier this year right before it quadrupled. I still think it's stupid, but, that doesn't mean I couldn't be bullish on the price at the time. 

Gene.   Just stop it already; be self-aware.    We've been on these boards for 17 years.   You're a good dude but you have demonstrated time and again that you don't think much of that material (either the content or the price potential).    I can think of both posts and pm's where you've talked about "lotus prices being stupid" or "collecting games being dumb" etc etc etc.    Its abundantly clear that you don't truly believe in what generational changeover means because you have no interest in collectibles past a certain date.

My personal favorite was when you were telling me about how illustration art had to fill this checkbox and that checkbox to matter to anybody and the example you used was Pac Man art... how could anybody find that interesting?   Which is when I replied to you with a picture of my Pac Man box art to which you dropped the convo

 Still gives me the chuckles    I activated the link just now just for you

Edited July 8, 2019 by Bronty

[FlyingDonut]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Well, OK, but if you had really learned from that experience you might not be so quick to pizz all over the things people were into 25 years ago, like mtg and games.   You say you've figured it out but you continue to apply the same thinking.   That will get you the right answer with respect to comics but not with respect to other collectibles that are coming up.    

I don't know if I'd apply the 25/75 thing quite as harshly as Donut but if you agree with him, then agree with him, for all that entails.   (Even if that means *gasp* people collecting Pokemon cards because they liked them 25 years ago).

My son is 23 and has grown up in a house with tens of thousands of comic books. What does he collect and lust after as a collectible? Magic cards.

[FlyingDonut]

27 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I don't GAF about that.    But since we have these conversations every month I can't help but see that you're willfully blind to anything that you aren't yourself interested in.   If you believe in generational changeover as a driving force, then own it.   Apply the logic consistently.      Ie if you really believe that the reason you were wrong all these years about comic art prices is due to those kids growing up, then you ought to be quite bullish on video games, mtg, and pokemon.   

But, since you'll never admit to that, I'm forced to think that you're full of poop when you say you've learned anything from it.

I am and you should be as well. Look at what's happening to the prices of early- and mid-90s video games, Magic, and Pokemon cards. 

Here - I'll give you a freebie. Buy first generation Yu-Gi-Oh cards from this series. Put them away for a while. I speak from personal experience watching my 12 year old son in 2007 go NUTS for Yu-Gi-Oh cards. 2032? He'll be buying them left and right.

[delekkerste]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

I don't GAF about that.    But since we have these conversations every month I can't help but see that you're willfully blind to anything that you aren't yourself interested in.   Its OK to the be the grumpy old man telling everyone to get off their lawn, but then own it.   You tend to come across as though you consider everything past '1983 comics and 1983 comic art' as stupid.    Well.... if you believe in 25/75, believe it.    

Unlike most here, I actually read and enjoy new/newer comics (last 3 things I read, all in the past 2 weeks:  the last Southern Bastards TPB, Walking Dead TPB vol. 29 and the complete All Star Batman & Robin) and probably have 2 or 3 dozen OA pieces from the 2000s and 2010s (along with hundreds, if not a thousand or two, comics and TPBs from the era).  

To say that I am willfully blind to things I am not myself interested in is...  What, do you think I don't own any BWS or other art from The Studio?  I don't think anyone has been more brutally honest about the quite obvious demographic issues that material is facing these days.  There's a lot of stuff that I own that I am not bullish on, and there's a lot of stuff that I don't own/am not interested in that I either am or have been bullish on. You'd have to really try to level a criticism more off-base than this one. 

 

[Bronty]

10 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Unlike most here, I actually read and enjoy new/newer comics (last 3 things I read, all in the past 2 weeks:  the last Southern Bastards TPB, Walking Dead TPB vol. 29 and the complete All Star Batman & Robin) and probably have 2 or 3 dozen OA pieces from the 2000s and 2010s (along with hundreds, if not a thousand or two, comics and TPBs from the era).  

To say that I am willfully blind to things I am not myself interested in is...  What, do you think I don't own any BWS or other art from The Studio?  I don't think anyone has been more brutally honest about the quite obvious demographic issues that material is facing these days.  There's a lot of stuff that I own that I am not bullish on, and there's a lot of stuff that I don't own/am not interested in that I either am or have been bullish on. You'd have to really try to level a criticism more off-base than this one. 

 

Stocks etc perhaps, but I don't believe I've ever heard you make a bullish comment about the price of any collectible, to be perfectly honest.    The last time Gene said a collectible was vastly underpriced or was even positive about its prospects?   As I recall there was a stiff northern wind in hell that day

Edited July 8, 2019 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

17 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Gene.   Just stop it already; be self-aware.    We've been on these boards for 17 years.   You're a good dude but you have demonstrated time and again that you don't think much of that material (either the content or the price potential).    I can think of both posts and pm's where you've talked about "lotus prices being stupid" or "collecting games being dumb" etc etc etc.    Its abundantly clear that you don't truly believe in what generational changeover means because you have no interest in collectibles past a certain date.

My personal favorite was when you were telling me about how illustration art had to fill this checkbox and that checkbox to matter to anybody and the example you used was Pac Man art... how could anybody find that interesting?   Which is when I replied to you with a picture of my Pac Man box art to which you dropped the convo

 Still gives me the chuckles    I activated the link just now just for you

What on earth are you talking about??? 

You're the one who keeps harping on the fact that illustration art is 100% about context, not me (not that I don't largely agree with you).  I don't even recall having this alleged conversation about Pac-Man art, because, to be frank, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT PAC-MAN PIC YOU POSTED IS FROM!!  If things actually happened as you recollect (which I do not remember at all), and I dropped the subject after you sent me the pic, it would only have been because I was playing along with you, because, again, I have no idea what that Pac-Man illustration even is. 

I may have said that Lotus prices are stupid.  In fact, I know that I've said that. But, not in a "THIS MARKET IS GOING TO CRASH!" kind of way, more in a "these prices are like 1000x more expensive than other collectibles were at a similar stage of their lifecycle and are probably not a good buy" kind of way.  But, no one knows better than me that there are a lot of stupid people with a lot of money out there.  You should not make the error - as you clearly have - of thinking that my thinking a price is stupid means that I think prices have to come down anytime soon.  That's all in your head, because it's not in mine.  

[delekkerste]

7 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Stocks etc perhaps, but I don't believe I've ever heard you make a bullish comment about the price of any collectible, to be perfectly honest.    The last time Gene said a collectible was vastly underpriced?   As I recall there was a stiff northern wind in hell that day

I said that Ferrari F40s were vastly underpriced back in the 2011-12 timeframe (I have made references to it at least once or twice in The Water Cooler).   I was right - they quadrupled in price at their peak (although have started to come back down). 

I have made plenty of bullish comments about art & collectibles.  You're just never around when I make them! 

 

[dichotomy]

Just to mix things up - Interesting to see, from conception to now execution, the careful development of the video game cartridge as collectible. It makes no sense to me that someone has bid $15,000 for an early game (Stadium Events) but it obviously this makes sense to them. The corporate management of this makes it seem likely that the ‘key piece’ value may sustain. And when you see the corporations shift gear, take heed.  

[Bronty]

9 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I said that Ferrari F40s were vastly underpriced back in the 2011-12 timeframe (I have made references to it at least once or twice in The Water Cooler).   I was right - they quadrupled in price at their peak (although have started to come back down). 

I have made plenty of bullish comments about art & collectibles.  You're just never around when I make them! 

 

Plenty is a stretch my friend.    I think I do recall you mentioning Ferrari's though.   I know you mentioned sports teams but those aren't 'collectibles.'

Still looking.    A search feature that goes back more than a year would be nice.   May not be able to find the convo.   Here's one along these lines though

• Report reply

delekkerste

Started conversation: May 11, 2015

...your Borises are going to be worthless. Get out while you still can!! 

•  
• Quote

• Report reply

Bronty

Replied: May 11, 2015

 Well why would my borises be worthless when it's all subject matter that would appeal to an audience that skews 15-20 years younger than comics? 

[delekkerste]

6 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Plenty is a stretch my friend.    I think I do recall you mentioning Ferrari's though.   I know you mentioned sports teams but those aren't 'collectibles.'

Still looking.    A search feature that goes back more than a year would be nice.   May not be able to find the convo.   Here's one along these lines though  

All I see is some funny trolling about Borises!  

In any case, clearly that was a generalized/humorous statement about the artist and genre...I don't even know which Borises you own aside from 2 or 3...

Edited July 8, 2019 by delekkerste

[Bronty]

Boris trolling is always fun.  Any boris or Julies I have are game box covers, hence the comment then and the relevance now.  

Clearly you need to remember your 8 year old PM's better: 

 

• Report reply

Bronty

Replied: August 24, 2011

had to bump this pm as it was one of my favorite pms of all time the way it played out... I got a huge chuckle out of it then & now. You gave having no interest in pacman as a perfectly reasonable illustration of your point (not realizing I collect that stuff and had just bought a vintage pacman painting or two  ). And then......... no response. I always figured you didn't know WTF to say after seeing those paintings  

 

I also just checked out an old pm from you re hulk 181 prices and a warehouse find... quite surprised to find the prices haven't gone perceptibly down at all and if anything seemed on a slight uptick. I guess a truckload of copies can't kill that book dead, a boatload is needed!

 

congrats on the elvgren addition, its very nice. I'm not even going to ask you what you paid for it, couldn't have been cheap.

 

for my part I've just kept on truckin' buying game related art. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Bronty

[Peter L]

3 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I always assumed Gene thought once the boomers were out, things would drop off some. But it seems like Gen X has largely absorbed most of the difference in the hobby, with a few exceptions.
Though there are signs of some stalwarts softening. The recent discussions on the long term prospects for Conan being a reasonable example. And even that one is a loaded topic, with social norms shifting as much as economic ones.

I know early on, I thought Gene was a bit ahead of himself, but more and more I see other signs that things are getting more... complicated.
Income hasn't truly kept up for a large swath of the population. The cost of art has risen, and I know many of us have said time and again, if we'd not started when we did, we'd not have the collections we do now. And so SOMEONE is buying the work. But it still does seem inevitable that the willingness and wherewithal to absorb that much "collection" is just not there. At least not for now. If the established folks can't afford it, who can? Right now, it's a bit of an x-factor. Others would know more than I.

And just maybe in the next 10-15 years, there will be yet another economic boom for someone somewhere. Pendulum swinging and all that. But looking at the numbers posted now, and hearing the names of the folks posting those numbers, we still aren't seeing a ton of fresh blood in the hobby to take on all these items from the Boomers, and from GenX. And it's not just comics. The vintage instrument field is down a fair bit still from before 2008. Vintage cars, down. Vintage this and that, everywhere. Everything started somewhere, And for a long time we had enough folks in the world to suck it all up, keep it in good shape, and want to share and show off these possessions with their peers.

At the risk of inviting political discourse into the conversation, with the advent of further automation and AI putting more and more jobs out to pasture, I don't see people spending quite the same $ on having things around as they once did. It was a time and place. Our time and place. But society evolves along at it's own pace. Technology has sped up that evolution. And we get a front row seat.

 

 

I watch HGTV and I see these huge houses and I think, are there that many people who can afford these houses? There was one episode where two specialist doctors with one kid were looking at a $1.8 million home in Phoenix and they said they couldn't afford it, but they were looking at what kind of features of the house they would want. 

How can that be?  What do these big home buyers do?  A lot of people seem to have a lot of money where they can afford houses like this.  That wealth isn't just going to disappear.  Maybe it will go to their kids.  

There is a lot of talk about student loan debt but I read that the average debt is around $30,000.  I don't think someone worried about a $30,000 student loan debt is going to be a big comic art collector.  

Comic art collecting may have problems in the future but I don't think the transfer of wealth or the lack of wealth will be the issue.

At one comic con I asked a book dealer why some issues were so high, and he said this was the largest amount of comic book readers in many decades.  The number of female readers has doubled the amount of those who read comics.  They may not read floppies but they read trades or digital.  I recall reading the stats that in the last few years there are more women who go to the SDCC than men.  I never would have guessed that.  

 

 

[ESeffinga]

4 minutes ago, Peter L said:

I watch HGTV and I see these huge houses and I think, are there that many people who can afford these houses? There was one episode where two specialist doctors with one kid were looking at a $1.8 million home in Phoenix and they said they couldn't afford it, but they were looking at what kind of features of the house they would want. 

How can that be?  What do these big home buyers do?  A lot of people seem to have a lot of money where they can afford houses like this.  That wealth isn't just going to disappear.  Maybe it will go to their kids.  

There is a lot of talk about student loan debt but I read that the average debt is around $30,000.  I don't think someone worried about a $30,000 student loan debt is going to be a big comic art collector.  

Comic art collecting may have problems in the future but I don't think the transfer of wealth or the lack of wealth will be the issue.

 

 

Really?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestreet.com/amp/personal-finance/even-high-income-people-overspend-14776389

[vodou]

Quoting and Replying to Everybody that's posted today...

Nobody knows what the actual present demand price of anything would be without leverage.

Don't assume leverage in any amount and certainly not at present levels will always be there.

[Bronty]

42 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

All I see is some funny trolling about Borises!  

In any case, clearly that was a generalized/humorous statement about the artist and genre...I don't even know which Borises you own aside from 2 or 3...

Enjoy!   From 2010! 

• Report reply

Bronty

Replied: July 23, 2010

   Quote

 

I swear, the IQ of many otherwise intelligent people drops about 50 points when talking about the hobby. Some of those offers and indications of interest happened in the freakin' 1980s!! I don't know about you, but I no longer have any interest in Pac-Man,

 

I'm the wrong guy to ask rhetorical questions about 1980s gaming 

 

but I understand the point you're trying to make 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

40 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Enjoy!   I don't make stuff up!   Even when its from 2010 s out though!

Um, I just found the PM thread and don't think the conversation went quite like how you remember it!  

The whole discussion was about how I didn't think that guys like Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who were allegedly interested in buying big Frazettas back in 1983 or whatever, were still interested in buying them in 2010, as some here were speculating (recall that, at this point, Arnold is the governor of California and in his 60s, while Clint is 80 and busy working on film projects); I think this was around the time that one or two of the Conans sold for 7 digits. 

To which point, I said that there were a number of things that I, personally, a much younger person still in his prime nostalgia buying years, was no longer interested in from the 1980s - like Pac-Man, E.T. and Heather Thomas from The Fall Guy.  And then I said, heck, there are things that I was interested in a year ago (2009) that I wasn't interested in now, so why should we expect people to still be interested in the same things as 27 years ago?  Nothing more, nothing less - just one person's personal experience. The conversation had nothing to do with Pac-Man illustration art or anyone other than myself no longer being interested in Pac-Man, E.T. or Heather Thomas (because some people still are, of course)...  

I see that you linked to the Pac-Man piece you acquired and that I didn't respond to the message, and that you even followed up on it later on. I guess in your mind I was blown away by the piece and didn't know what to say, but, the reality is that I either clicked on the link and didn't know what I was looking at, or, I just glossed over the link entirely (my bad).  

Edited July 8, 2019 by delekkerste

[Bronty]

16 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I guess in your mind I was blown away by the piece and didn't know what to say

  Farthest thing from my mind because I know you undervalue and don't take seriously collectibles you aren't interested in... same point I'm making today almost 10 years later.    (I seem to recall you dismissing that 100k mario sale as a 'marketing stunt' despite multiple offers (including one at a higher price)).    Maybe that's just what it was worth?  You know, because of the demographics you like to mention?   

I embraced that general 'Donut' message about generational change 17 years ago.   I'm not sure you're all the way there yet (wrt to anything other than comics).   

Edited July 8, 2019 by Bronty

[Timely]

If you are looking to invest, try to pick the things that keep going, from generation to generation. Mainline... Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, TMNT, Transformers.

IE: I watched Transformers & played with the toys when I was 12.  My 8 year old watches the cartoons, new movies & loves the toys. 

 

What's stagnant or basically dead? BLB, anything Western, stamps, pulps, Obediah Oldbuck.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timely