They're Still Out There! 22 22

[Mmehdy]

22 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Counterpoint: nobody who spends $1,000+ on a comic book is purely in it for “historical significance.”

I remember the first time I spent $6 on a back issue (Ghost Rider - 1990, # 1), the first time I spent >$50 (New Mutants # 87), the first time I spent $200 (Ghost Rider - 1950, # 1), the first time I spent >$800 (X-Men # 1), the first time I spent >$1,000 (Batman # 5) and the first time I spent >$2,000 (Showcase # 4).

Just because I’ve been doing this for 30+ years doesn’t make me any less aware of value than the latest “new money” who have only been doing this for 3-6 months.

Nor should I have any more claim to these Promise Collection books than that new money.

The highest bidder will win, I accept that. I also hope 90% of these books land in comic book collections, rather than a "widget safty deposit box". I do not think, at least in terms of today's market $1000 is signifcant in and of itself. Is it 10K, 100K, or 1M...I cannot answer that question. Of couse "exit" in ones GA collection has to be a factor. I am not suggesting to go out and recklessly spend money on GA comic books becasue you "love them". I do think however that in a perfect world, the true comic book collector should win out over the pure speculator. 

 I agree nobody has a higher claim....but we TCBC(true comic book collectors) have a "higher purpose"  and with  truth, justice and the American ways it seems to win out over time.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Mmehdy

[tth2]

5 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

With that being said, there is no reason to beat up people when you want to buy something, either you can or you  can't afford it

It's not about whether you win the game or not.  It's all about how much you can run up the score on the other guy.

[tth2]

4 hours ago, Funnybooks said:

5 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

That is a pretty interesting statement, coming from Bleeding Cool - the same online muckraking website that goes out of its way to disrespect the privacy wishes of retailers and publishers industry wide.

Agenda much?

Boy has this thread taken a bitter tone since the posts of the slabs started coming out! 

[MrBedrock]

5 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

 TCBC

Terribly Cloistered Board Commentators

[MrBedrock]

1 minute ago, tth2 said:

5 hours ago, Funnybooks said:

5 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

That is a pretty interesting statement, coming from Bleeding Cool - the same online muckraking website that goes out of its way to disrespect the privacy wishes of retailers and publishers industry wide.

Agenda much?

Boy has this thread taken a bitter tone since the posts of the slabs started coming out! 

I still haven't heard who the "agenda" comment was directed at.

[Mmehdy]

1 minute ago, MrBedrock said:

Terribly Cloistered Board Commentators

Bed: I consider your a knight of the highest order: TCBCD...true comic book collector dealer..it does not get better than that.

[tth2]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

I think that buyers are entitled to the truth about a collection

The only people who think that are people with a false sense of entitlement.

[sfcityduck]

2 hours ago, Straw-Man said:

and SO WHAT?!   it is an original owner collection that meets cgc's pedigree criteria.  thus, they're in a ped label.  buy them if you want; or ask that a little pamphlet be produced about "the backstory" and buy that.  but they are JUST FUNNY-BOOKS, and if you don't like any aspect of the find/buy/consignment/manipulation/grading/seller, then move on to the next funny book that tickles your fancy.  50 pages of drivel and not a book sold yet.  lawd, i say LAWD.

You protest too much.  The only reason I made that post was because the poster to whom I was responding, was cautioning people against saying anything that would hurt the final sales value of a book at auction.  Why? Because he asserted the FAMILY would take the financial hit.  Hence, my comment that we don't even know if the family gets a dime from the upcoming auction.

[MrBedrock]

2 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

Bed: I consider you a: TCBCD...

Tiny Craniumed Bitter Crotchety Dork

[sfcityduck]

42 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:

Why in the world would we be entitled to that information? Totally none of our business.

 

You also protest too much.  Again, my post was in response to a poster who was asserting that no one should say anything that could hurt the sales price of a book because the FAMILY would get less money.  My point was simple:  We don't even know if the FAMILY will get a dime from the auction.  So the poster's assertion was overblown and unfounded.

[Mmehdy]

Just now, MrBedrock said:

Tiny Craniumed Bitter Crotchety Dork

Bed: stop being so hard on yourself...you are a rare breed dealer who also is a real collector...

[MrBedrock]

1 minute ago, Mmehdy said:

Bed: stop being so hard on yourself...you are a rare breed dealer who also is a real collector...

RBDWAIARC!

[Funnybooks]

3 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

I still haven't heard who the "agenda" comment was directed at.

In an effort to avoid provoking the thread, I'll maintain a stance of discretion being the better part of valor and retract my earlier response. Let's get back to what's important...continuing to extol upon a collection of books the likes that we have never seen.

[sfcityduck]

4 minutes ago, tth2 said:

The only people who think that are people with a false sense of entitlement.

If a seller takes out an ad to tell a story to enhance the marketability of a collection, it is not a "false sense of entitlement" that gives the buyer the right to do whatever due diligence they can.  The only sense of "entitlement" would be on the part of a seller who thinks they can say whatever they want without having their tales checked out by buyers. Do you really disagree?

[Scrooge]

1 minute ago, MrBedrock said:

RBDWAIARC!

I didn't know you were a Junior Woodchuck!

[Robot Man]

4 minutes ago, tth2 said:

Boy has this thread taken a bitter tone since the posts of the slabs started coming out! 

Indeed it has. Remember when the GA section was the fun one?

In the meantime, this "grumpy old man" isn't angry about today's market values one little bit.

I am more than happy to sell the cheap junk I bought before many of you were born for hundreds to thousands of dollars a book to you, let's just call you "hobbyists". Does that term offend anyone? 

Seems the only winners these days are the big auction houses, CGC and us "grumpy old men"...

 

[MrBedrock]

2 minutes ago, Robot Man said:

 let's just call you "hobbyists". Does that term offend anyone? 

 

I am a little triggered by the word "you".

Edited May 11, 2021 by MrBedrock

[sfcityduck]

1 minute ago, Funnybooks said:

Let's get back to what's important...continuing to extol upon a collection of books the likes that we have never seen.

I'm not convinced this collection blows away the Mile High pedigree.  Right now, it's hard for me to assess how impressive this collection really is.  There's no doubt its impressive, but it doesn't have high grade mega-keys like Action 1, D27, etc.  And, IMHO, the grading is a bit soft - giving this collection a better impression to those who buy the label than those who buy the book.

[comicnoir]

4 hours ago, Flex Mentallo said:

This entertaining discussion reminded me about the recent controversy regarding Leonardo's Salvatore Mundi attribution following its sale to a Saudi prince. He refused to loan it to The Louvre for an exhibition because they were not confident that it is an autograph painting by the master's hand alone, and would not as the Prince demanded, hang it alongside the Mona Lisa.

I was reminded of this because until the 18th century it was accepted that Renaissance artists had workshops full of assistants who helped the master complete commissions.

After Sotheby's and Christie's were founded in the mid 18th century, they actively promoted the concept of the singular genius who alone produced great works.

 

In turn, expert attribution became critical to ascertaining provenance and value. (A painting in the National Gallery in London originally attributed to Rembrandt was years later attributed to one of his followers. As a result, the painting's value instantly fell by 90%).

 

The process of authentication may vary from field to field, but as we all appreciate, these extrinsic factors contribute to investor confidence, and the intrinsic (monetary) value is established after a successful sale.

 

I can hardly begin to imagine how the Saudi Prince felt after having acquired the Salvatore Mundi, its authenticity as an autograph work was called into question.

 

To which all I can say is hic(urp).

 

It's authenticity was in question before he bought it. He willed it to be authentic and paid the price.

[Funnybooks]

4 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

You also protest too much.  Again, my post was in response to a poster who was asserting that no one should say anything that could hurt the sales price of a book because the FAMILY would get less money.  My point was simple:  We don't even know if the FAMILY will get a dime from the auction.  So the poster's assertion was overblown and unfounded.

That was me and I stand unwavering by my assertion. I realize what it's worth.