They're Still Out There! 22 22

[Bookery]

Of course, as long as we're simply talking $ and potential for increases over time, just remember that right now a comic book with "fabulous cover-X" that can be had for $5000, can, if a pulp with a similar cover (even with massive increases this past year) be had for $500 (or less), and if a vintage paperback with a similar cover, can be had for $50 (or less).  And is some cases, the pulp or paperback are scarcer (esp. in grade).

 

 

[Robot Man]

1 hour ago, Bookery said:

Of course, as long as we're simply talking $ and potential for increases over time, just remember that right now a comic book with "fabulous cover-X" that can be had for $5000, can, if a pulp with a similar cover (even with massive increases this past year) be had for $500 (or less), and if a vintage paperback with a similar cover, can be had for $50 (or less).  And is some cases, the pulp or paperback are scarcer (esp. in grade).

 

 

When showing comic people my pulps, I often say “what would this be worth if it were a comic book?” Then I get the argument that there are no pictures inside. Often from slab collectors. I just have to say, you can’t see any “pictures” when your book is slabbed anyway. If pulps were able to be slabbed it would be a real game changer. 

Pulps are still the wild frontier as well. No Gerber books to show the covers. And even if you are aware of a great cover, good luck in finding a copy. 

[LordRahl]

12 hours ago, szav said:

Please do! No reason GA/SA/BA/CA/modern can’t all do great long term.  My recent comments were meant more in defense of GA.  There is more to value than popularity, just like there’s more to value than rarity.
 

No one’s comic or collectible that has zero intrinsic value is any more worthy of being pricey than anyone else’s comic or collectible with zero intrinsic value, they’re all worth whatever people are willing to pay at any particular point in time.

I just see a correction coming in all comic markets due to all the money that’s flowed in over the last year, and because reopening is upon us, and people will start spending on travel and leisure again.  I think the stuff which will fall a bit harder are the ones that soared the highest recently but we’ll see.

I completely agree with you on this. Copper has had an astounding rise in prices in just the last year. When books go up by 500% in a year or less, they have a lot of room to fall in a correction. It's just wonky how much some books have gone up in a year. This of course assumes that a correction is imminent, that part I'm not so sure about.

[buttock]

52 minutes ago, Robot Man said:

Pulps are still the wild frontier as well. No Gerber books to show the covers. And even if you are aware of a great cover, good luck in finding a copy. 

I think this highlights the main pro and con of pulps.  They're much harder to find, and comic collectors are impatient.  On the other hand, when they do turn up after years of looking you could see explosive prices due to demand.  But if people find other squirrels to chase, they could flop.  HA having pulp auctions is a good thing for the market.  

[Robot Man]

What would this be worth it if were a comic book?

It would probably not very easy to find if you were looking for it...

[sfcityduck]

There is a major difference between the present generation of GA collectors and the SA/Bronze collectors:  A significant segment of GA collectors are inordinantly drawn to comics with little pop culture relevance because they are "shocking" or "risque" for their time of publication.  SA/Bronze collectors are mainly pursuing first appearances of characters with pop culture relevance, whether it be Spiderman, GSXM, TMNT, Albedo, Blade, etc.  Some laugh at how movies drive up prices, but the MCU movies are a major determiner of pop culture relevance.  

I hate to say this, but in the long term I'd be more comfortable betting on pop culture relevance over "shocking" or "risque" bondage covers.  Especially in a world in which increasingly very little is shocking and risque and a good part of that world is much more sensitive to "me too" type issues.  Don't get me wrong, PL 17 has real historical significance.  But, sometimes I think a lot of GGA is valued because collectors are looking at it out of the eyes of a 1940s/1950s teenage boy, and I'm not sure that is a view which is going to carry on into the future with kids who grow up with life experiences which make them think what was once GGA to a teenage boy is now just a drawing which can't hold a candle to Instragram beauties and the porn they can access from their phones.  Just a thought.  

[Robot Man]

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

There is a major difference between the present generation of GA collectors and the SA/Bronze collectors:  A significant segment of GA collectors are inordinantly drawn to comics with little pop culture relevance because they are "shocking" or "risque" for their time of publication.  SA/Bronze collectors are mainly pursuing first appearances of characters with pop culture relevance, whether it be Spiderman, GSXM, TMNT, Albedo, Blade, etc.  Some laugh at how movies drive up prices, but the MCU movies are a major determiner of pop culture relevance.  

I hate to say this, but in the long term I'd be more comfortable betting on pop culture relevance over "shocking" or "risque" bondage covers.  Especially in a world in which increasingly very little is shocking and risque and a good part of that world is much more sensitive to "me too" type issues.  Don't get me wrong, PL 17 has real historical significance.  But, sometimes I think a lot of GGA is valued because collectors are looking at it out of the eyes of a 1940s/1950s teenage boy, and I'm not sure that is a view which is going to carry on into the future with kids who grow up with life experiences which make them think what was once GGA to a teenage boy is now just a drawing which can't hold a candle to Instragram beauties and the porn they can access from their phones.  Just a thought.  

This might be true right now. A lot of the younger guys are buying up their youth and in the flipping game for the movie comics which, once the movie passes, see a decline in value. 20 years from now there might be a whole lot of younger folks doing the same thing. What happens to the books of today then?

I long ago realized how important the thrill of the hunt was and how cool books were before I was born. I was of course a collector and not as concerned about value or how much I could make off them. I love the many genres and types of GA books. Some are near impossible to find no matter how much money you have. When you can go on Ebay and have your choice of numerous copies of the same book and just buy it, it just doesn't scratch that itch and that feeling I get when I turn up some elusive gem. 

Will there even be that many true collectors and seekers in the future? That is the question. 

[sfcityduck]

12 minutes ago, Robot Man said:

 

I long ago realized how important the thrill of the hunt was and how cool books were before I was born. I was of course a collector and not as concerned about value or how much I could make off them. I love the many genres and types of GA books. Some are near impossible to find no matter how much money you have. When you can go on Ebay and have your choice of numerous copies of the same book and just buy it, it just doesn't scratch that itch and that feeling I get when I turn up some elusive gem. 

 

Could not agree more.  I'm drawn to seeking books off the beaten path, and what drives me is history, cool art, my own tastes, and other factors which are not dictated by investment potential.  It this hobby were, for me, only about investment potential I would not be spending so much time looking for books that have taken me years or more than a decade to find.  Most of the threads I put up on this site are about the thrill and joy of finally finding the book I've been looking for or finding out some new information which I've wanted to know. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by sfcityduck

[Bookery]

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

There is a major difference between the present generation of GA collectors and the SA/Bronze collectors:  A significant segment of GA collectors are inordinantly drawn to comics with little pop culture relevance because they are "shocking" or "risque" for their time of publication.  SA/Bronze collectors are mainly pursuing first appearances of characters with pop culture relevance, whether it be Spiderman, GSXM, TMNT, Albedo, Blade, etc.  Some laugh at how movies drive up prices, but the MCU movies are a major determiner of pop culture relevance.  

I hate to say this, but in the long term I'd be more comfortable betting on pop culture relevance over "shocking" or "risque" bondage covers.  Especially in a world in which increasingly very little is shocking and risque and a good part of that world is much more sensitive to "me too" type issues.  Don't get me wrong, PL 17 has real historical significance.  But, sometimes I think a lot of GGA is valued because collectors are looking at it out of the eyes of a 1940s/1950s teenage boy, and I'm not sure that is a view which is going to carry on into the future with kids who grow up with life experiences which make them think what was once GGA to a teenage boy is now just a drawing which can't hold a candle to Instragram beauties and the porn they can access from their phones.  Just a thought.  

Your point above is well-founded.  On the other hand, and I also hate to say it, none of this stuff, other than a tiny fraction, will hold value or significance very many generations down the road.  That's the whole deal with pop culture... it's only popular for a generation or several.  Then another pop icon takes over.  If you go by pop-culture crossovers and mass-relevance, in the 1950s Mickey Mouse and Tarzan were probably still bigger than Superman.  In fact, even with the onslaught of MCU movies, they still haven't matched the number of films cranked out about Tarzan.  Yet, except for the rarest items, or the few keys, most collectors today have no interest in either of those characters.

As for art, I long believed it would hold significance much longer.  After all, great art is great art, no?  Well... probably not.  Today's generation is growing up on incredible photo-realistic computer-generated art.  No matter how good a line-drawn piece of art by Matt Baker or Wally Wood is, to them it's still barely more than a hastily-drawn cartoon compared to what they know today.  There are lots of fantastic illustrators from the 1800s and early 1900s, and there will always be collectors for them... but how many of the general populace today would have any interest in even looking at them.  Show them Aubrey Beardsley, N.C. Wyeth, Howard Pyle, Arthur Rackham, Winsor McKay... and tell them what significant artists they were, and they'll look at you like you're nuts.

Tastes change (and you're delineated some reasons above)... in both characters and style.  It's just the way it is and always will be.  

[MattTheDuck]

2 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Your point above is well-founded.  On the other hand, and I also hate to say it, none of this stuff, other than a tiny fraction, will hold value or significance very many generations down the road.  That's the whole deal with pop culture... it's only popular for a generation or several.  Then another pop icon takes over.  If you go by pop-culture crossovers and mass-relevance, in the 1950s Mickey Mouse and Tarzan were probably still bigger than Superman.  In fact, even with the onslaught of MCU movies, they still haven't matched the number of films cranked out about Tarzan.  Yet, except for the rarest items, or the few keys, most collectors today have no interest in either of those characters.

As for art, I long believed it would hold significance much longer.  After all, great art is great art, no?  Well... probably not.  Today's generation is growing up on incredible photo-realistic computer-generated art.  No matter how good a line-drawn piece of art by Matt Baker or Wally Wood is, to them it's still barely more than a hastily-drawn cartoon compared to what they know today.  There are lots of fantastic illustrators from the 1800s and early 1900s, and there will always be collectors for them... but how many of the general populace today would have any interest in even looking at them.  Show them Aubrey Beardsley, N.C. Wyeth, Howard Pyle, Arthur Rackham, Winsor McKay... and tell them what significant artists they were, and they'll look at you like you're nuts.

Tastes change (and you're delineated some reasons above)... in both characters and style.  It's just the way it is and always will be.  

This.  I'd be very cautious about trusting current pop culture to hold relevance into the future.  I do have some Pet Rocks and Mood Rings to sell, however.

[Pantodude]

1 hour ago, MattTheDuck said:

I'd be very cautious about trusting current pop culture to hold relevance into the future

Scooby Doo took offense.   APOLOGIZE!  

Edited June 7, 2021 by Pantodude

[D84]

I'm only interested in price when I'm looking to buy. Once I have it, it no longer matters.

[MattTheDuck]

39 minutes ago, Pantodude said:

Scooby Doo took offense.   APOLOGIZE!  

Ruh Roh!  I would have gotten away with it if it weren't....

[Mmehdy]

2 hours ago, Bookery said:

Your point above is well-founded.  On the other hand, and I also hate to say it, none of this stuff, other than a tiny fraction, will hold value or significance very many generations down the road.  That's the whole deal with pop culture... it's only popular for a generation or several.  Then another pop icon takes over.  If you go by pop-culture crossovers and mass-relevance, in the 1950s Mickey Mouse and Tarzan were probably still bigger than Superman.  In fact, even with the onslaught of MCU movies, they still haven't matched the number of films cranked out about Tarzan.  Yet, except for the rarest items, or the few keys, most collectors today have no interest in either of those characters.

As for art, I long believed it would hold significance much longer.  After all, great art is great art, no?  Well... probably not.  Today's generation is growing up on incredible photo-realistic computer-generated art.  No matter how good a line-drawn piece of art by Matt Baker or Wally Wood is, to them it's still barely more than a hastily-drawn cartoon compared to what they know today.  There are lots of fantastic illustrators from the 1800s and early 1900s, and there will always be collectors for them... but how many of the general populace today would have any interest in even looking at them.  Show them Aubrey Beardsley, N.C. Wyeth, Howard Pyle, Arthur Rackham, Winsor McKay... and tell them what significant artists they were, and they'll look at you like you're nuts.

Tastes change (and you're delineated some reasons above)... in both characters and style.  It's just the way it is and always will be.  

I think "Art" argument can also be made about the GA comic book and SA comic book in a way. The Mona Lisa is old but I agree great art is great art forever. Action #1 is the "Mona Lisa" of comic books clearly, AF 15 etc. I disagree with you Bookery that those GA/SA comic books will never go out of style and in fact increase in value, awareness, and appreciation for future generations. Tarzan is not Superman nor Spiderman. The collecting years you are comparing to, are ancient history. When you bought the ALL Story Tarzan..I thinks it #17. you bought and it and threw it away. Today, in the digital age, everything is saved or much easier for future generations to access or become engaged in.

Bookery, the audience has grown...back in 1919 when that Tarzan mag hit the stands, it was in the USA  we had 104.5 Million people..today at 331 million and overseas Billions the number of persons who could be interested is endless. Two ways to look at the coin, you say heads and I say tails. I think the future is brightest that it has ever been.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Mmehdy

[innocuous]

2 hours ago, Bookery said:

As for art, I long believed it would hold significance much longer.  After all, great art is great art, no?  Well... probably not.  Today's generation is growing up on incredible photo-realistic computer-generated art.  No matter how good a line-drawn piece of art by Matt Baker or Wally Wood is, to them it's still barely more than a hastily-drawn cartoon compared to what they know today.  There are lots of fantastic illustrators from the 1800s and early 1900s, and there will always be collectors for them... but how many of the general populace today would have any interest in even looking at them.  Show them Aubrey Beardsley, N.C. Wyeth, Howard Pyle, Arthur Rackham, Winsor McKay... and tell them what significant artists they were, and they'll look at you like you're nuts. 

Good reminder for me to see if Joshua Middleton has any art for sale right now. 
 

EDIT: dang, nothing

Edited June 7, 2021 by innocuous

[adamstrange]

2 hours ago, Bookery said:

Aubrey Beardsley, N.C. Wyeth, Howard Pyle, Arthur Rackham, Winsor McKay.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

24 minutes ago, innocuous said:

Good reminder for me to see if Joshua Middleton has any art for sale right now. 
 

EDIT: dang, nothing

And this guy sells literally nothing.. 

[iggy]

4 minutes ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

And this guy sells literally nothing.. 

 

Brilliant! I got your pedigree collection RIGHT HERE! 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

 

 

2 minutes ago, iggy said:

8 minutes ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

And this guy sells literally nothing.. 

 

Brilliant! I got your pedigree collection RIGHT HERE! 

The Invisible Pedigree! 

 

Just wait until the owner files an insurance claim for it being stolen. 

[Bronty]

44 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

I think "Art" argument can also be made about the GA comic book and SA comic book in a way. The Mona Lisa is old but I agree great art is great art forever. Action #1 is the "Mona Lisa" of comic books clearly, AF 15 etc. I disagree with you Bookery that those GA/SA comic books will never go out of style and in fact increase in value, awareness, and appreciation for future generations. Tarzan is not Superman nor Spiderman. The collecting years you are comparing to, are ancient history. When you bought the ALL Story Tarzan..I thinks it #17. you bought and it and threw it away. Today, in the digital age, everything is saved or much easier for future generations to access or become engaged in.

Bookery, the audience has grown...back in 1919 when that Tarzan mag hit the stands, it was in the USA  we had 104.5 Million people..today at 331 million and overseas Billions the number of persons who could be interested is endless. Two ways to look at the coin, you say heads and I say tails. I think the future is brightest that it has ever been.

He did say “other than a tiny fraction.” Meaning AF 15 I don’t think anyone is worried about but the rank and file ?   We are seeing it already.    First appearances used to be a bit more than second appearances.   Now they are the only thing that matters.    The run of the mill is being devalued and the few standouts appreciating.     I can’t speak for him but I think the point bookers is trying to make is that over time there are fewer and fewer standouts .   Again, it’s already happening when there are people seriously suggesting (and probably correct) that marvel spotlight 5 in 9.8 will sell for more than phantom lady 17.    Fewer and fewer books are relevant than ever before.