To all the folks complaining about the increase in OA prices this past year... 1 1

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, KingOfRulers said:

Or a quality collection that's built with patience, rather than haphazardly throwing money at something.

Of course, if you want to build the grandest collection of them all, money will indeed do that. Just throw more and more money at it. A billionaire throwing $1B into any collectible will find they have a magnificent collection, even if they significantly overpaid for every piece. They're a billionaire, so they still have billions to spare. Most people aren't billionaires or even millionaires though.

I understand the emotionally driven, "needing it now" phenomenon. Tomorrow is never promised, so enjoy as much as you can today. But for me there's a balance between needing it now and patient, disciplined spending. In my opinion, most people let the "needing it now" side of the equation drive their bidding. And not just their bidding on art, but their entire financial life. I suppose that's among the reasons that most Americans are in poor financial health, living in perpetual debt with far less than $10k in savings. 

Since I don't sell what I buy, price is not particularly relevant; but I do agree that one must build a collection with patience.

But, as I have said before, "quality" ought to be distinguished from desirability or collector demand. You seem more focused on the collectable value of the item than the joy which comes with ownership of a lovely piece. Joie de vivre; you will live longer, too.

[SquareChaos]

18 hours ago, tth2 said:

This is great advice if your aim is to build a small, mediocre collection. 

 

5 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

 

I was thinking the same thing. Well said.

This is kind of silly, though I get what is being said of course. Still... people build the collections they're comfortable with and it is what it is. Comparing your collection to everyone else's is such a modern social media way of thinking that is sure to make you disappointed.

The vast, vast, vast majority of collections are objectively mediocre and even more will be subjectively mediocre when viewed by the BSDs of the world or by the people that rode the wave of value up. I can see why some like the one people are responding to here may just want to approach it as a bit of a lighter weight hobby. 

 

[aokartman]

39 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

 

This is kind of silly, though I get what is being said of course. Still... people build the collections they're comfortable with and it is what it is. Comparing your collection to everyone else's is such a modern social media way of thinking that is sure to make you disappointed.

The vast, vast, vast majority of collections are objectively mediocre and even more will be subjectively mediocre when viewed by the BSDs of the world or by the people that rode the wave of value up. I can see why some like the one people are responding to here may just want to approach it as a bit of a lighter weight hobby. 

 

 

I agree with SquareChaos, and I sort of separate my mind into categories, keeping an eye on the high end for the eventual deaccessioning of my best pieces, and still (in my dotage) enjoying picking up modest work (bronze if I can justify it) for the enjoyment of it!  Books, mostly just watching and marveling at the rebound of comics, occasionally digging something out for sale, but not buying, either for pleasure or resale.  Well. maybe once in a while.  It's what I'm comfortable with, like he says.  David

[KingOfRulers]

12 hours ago, sfilosa said:

Two quick points,

1) In theory, if you purchase from a major auction house you’ve paid over market. At that moment in time, nobody else in the world wanted to pay more than you.

2) Many successful financial transactions are based on paying over market, at the time. Developers who win bidding for land, are banking on future increases that are not guaranteed. That could be the same for collectibles, you either believe there will be increased demand for the item or a way to maximize its value (resubmit for a CGC book for a higher grade).

 

 

 

1) I don't subscribe to that theory. It assumes a lot. The second chance button for losing bidders finds plenty of use.

2) I said, "While these days my objective isn't to flip art for a quick profit, I'd like to have the reasonable expectation that if I had to resell immediately, that I could break even." No reference was made to the future.

Justifying a purchase based upon possible future performance is an entirely separate endeavor. 

[KingOfRulers]

9 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Since I don't sell what I buy, price is not particularly relevant; but I do agree that one must build a collection with patience.

But, as I have said before, "quality" ought to be distinguished from desirability or collector demand. You seem more focused on the collectable value of the item than the joy which comes with ownership of a lovely piece. Joie de vivre; you will live longer, too.

I'm not focused on the monetary value of the item over the joy that it brings. A balance should be made. I don't forfeit financial responsibility for my desire of ownership of a collectible. If I'm spending thousands of dollars on any asset of this type, I'm going to do it with care.

I love the artwork, the stories, the characters, but I'm not interested in a collectible that costs thousands if I'm not reasonably certain that I can liquidate it at least for cost. And I'm sure not going into financial debt for it. In my opinion, it's not concentrating on the value. It sounds like that because financial value is the topic of this discussion, but really my position is that I am for balance. I am for the mid-point balancing act between joy of the art and financial responsibility. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by KingOfRulers

[exitmusicblue]

1 hour ago, KingOfRulers said:

I'm not focused on the monetary value of the item over the joy that it brings. A balance should be made. I don't forfeit financial responsibility for my desire of ownership of a collectible. If I'm spending thousands of dollars on any asset of this type, I'm going to do it with care.

I love the artwork, the stories, the characters, but I'm not interested in a collectible that costs thousands if I'm not reasonably certain that I can liquidate it at least for cost. And I'm sure not going into financial debt for it. In my opinion, it's not concentrating on the value. It sounds like that because financial value is the topic of this discussion, but really my position is that I am for balance. I am for the mid-point balancing act between joy of the art and financial responsibility. 

Well put.  You'll find all kinds here, and nothing wrong with yours.  Indeed, I think many of us started there before eventually finding ourselves elsewhere on the spectrum.

[MagnusX]

17 hours ago, batman_fan said:

I bought a certain cover in a private transaction which was 3x the highest price every paid for one of this artist cover.  Today I could sell it for 5x what I paid.

Breyfogle..?

[jjonahjameson11]

20 hours ago, sfilosa said:

Two quick points,

1) In theory, if you purchase from a major auction house you’ve paid over market. At that moment in time, nobody else in the world wanted to pay more than you.

Nah.  Respectfully, I disagree with this statement.

[KCOComics]

8 hours ago, KingOfRulers said:

I'm not focused on the monetary value of the item over the joy that it brings. A balance should be made. I don't forfeit financial responsibility for my desire of ownership of a collectible. If I'm spending thousands of dollars on any asset of this type, I'm going to do it with care.

I love the artwork, the stories, the characters, but I'm not interested in a collectible that costs thousands if I'm not reasonably certain that I can liquidate it at least for cost. And I'm sure not going into financial debt for it. In my opinion, it's not concentrating on the value. It sounds like that because financial value is the topic of this discussion, but really my position is that I am for balance. I am for the mid-point balancing act between joy of the art and financial responsibility.

I fall into your camp.  Balance, financial responsibility and living within your means is a basic pillar of life that I would encourage everyone to follow. 

With that said, I try to be prepared to "take a shot" when something really unique and Special comes around.  

Now, in fairness, I'm not taking shots at SA Kirby covers.  But if there is something that would be really special to me, I try to give myself the financial flexibility to go after it. I may "over pay", but with unique pieces, it's really about what is worth to me..  and hopefully it's not worth more to someone else. 

[sfilosa]

11 hours ago, KingOfRulers said:

1) I don't subscribe to that theory. It assumes a lot. The second chance button for losing bidders finds plenty of use.

2) I said, "While these days my objective isn't to flip art for a quick profit, I'd like to have the reasonable expectation that if I had to resell immediately, that I could break even." No reference was made to the future.

Justifying a purchase based upon possible future performance is an entirely separate endeavor. 

This was the phrase that in my mind makes no sense assuming you are a "collector", not someone trying to flip material, which you clearly stated you aren't.

* You are implying that if you ever bought anything at an auction or even from a dealer that had been on their site for more than a few hours:

1) You have such great contacts that you could turn around, sell the piece for exactly what you paid immediately, without using a 3rd party (e.g. auction site, dealer, etc.) so there would be no cost of selling. 

2) Now if you would need to resell through an auction house (which really couldn't be immediate) or dealer, you would in theory need to buy every piece of art at least 10% less than what you thought someone else really wanted to buy it for (to make up for the cost of selling).

3) So in my mind, the only way you could build a collection of material that you wanted, you would need to buy from other collectors (negotiate a price)  or items that were listed on CAF, FB, CGC, etc. and you purchased them in a few hours as they were really good deals. That is possible, but probably goes back to having a small collection and most likely not a lot of very high demand items. Most collectors not using an auction site would probably price "highly desirable/in demand art" very high just to see if someone bites, not at a discount.

None of this has anything to do with people with tens of millions of dollars just purchasing a lot of art and wowing the collecting community with how many highly desirable pieces they have. I don't spend any time trying to figure out how someone amassed their collection. I look at their art and either like the piece(s) or not. How anyone else wants to collector is fine with me. 

 

[sfilosa]

3 hours ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

23 hours ago, sfilosa said:

Two quick points,

1) In theory, if you purchase from a major auction house you’ve paid over market. At that moment in time, nobody else in the world wanted to pay more than you.

Nah.  Respectfully, I disagree with this statement.

Fair enough. In some cases, you could make the argument that someone would pay more, but wasn't able to. But I also said "major auction house". That was very specific as in most collectors have had a month or longer to see that a piece is available. If they really wanted a piece, even if they couldn't bid live, they could place their top bid. Yes, if you wanted to buy 10 pieces at $10k a piece, and only had $50k, were not available to bid during live bidding, you would only place $10k bids on five pieces. So in theory, if you lost all those five pieces (i.e. they all sold for $11k each) and the other five ended up selling for $9k each, the winners of those five pieces in theory paid less than what you would have purchased them for. I get that, but as a "winner" of a piece, that's not something you are really going to know at the time. . But I do get your point.

[Hockeyflow33]

12 hours ago, KingOfRulers said:

 

2) I said, "While these days my objective isn't to flip art for a quick profit, I'd like to have the reasonable expectation that if I had to resell immediately, that I could break even." No reference was made to the future.

 

I've always thought this was the goal of collecting anything. Every now and then if something really wows you it's okay to overspend but whether it's comics, art, statues, etc who wants to keep chucking money out the window? 

Nothing is better than getting a really nice piece you like for 30% under market value! 

[sfilosa]

1 hour ago, Hockeyflow33 said:

I've always thought this was the goal of collecting anything.

????  That's the goal of investing..... not collecting.

Of course we would all like to buy our collectibles at a 30% discount, but if you can do that a lot, maybe what you already own is worth 30% less than what you think.

 

 

[Hockeyflow33]

11 hours ago, sfilosa said:

????  That's the goal of investing..... not collecting.

Of course we would all like to buy our collectibles at a 30% discount, but if you can do that a lot, maybe what you already own is worth 30% less than what you think.

 

 

To me it's the difference between buying collectibles and just buying stuff. 

[tth2]

11 hours ago, Hockeyflow33 said:

To me it's the difference between buying collectibles and just buying stuff. 

Buying a collectible means in theory that it should retain its value and appreciate.  Buying "stuff" means that it depreciates in value the moment it leaves the store and continues to depreciate to zero, never appreciating in value, unless at some point it turns into a collectible.

[sfilosa]

16 minutes ago, tth2 said:

Buying a collectible means in theory that it should retain its value and appreciate.  Buying "stuff" means that it depreciates in value the moment it leaves the store and continues to depreciate to zero, never appreciating in value, unless at some point it turns into a collectible.

Not the actual definition of a collectible. It has to have value to a collector and something they want to collect. Nothing about holding it's value or appreciating in price.

Many "collectibles" have depreciated in price. I would agree that the people who collected those items were probably not buying them with the intention they would go down in price, it just happened as demand changed.

 

[jsylvester]

On 5/26/2021 at 12:28 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

I say this tongue-in-cheek...it's not them, its us.  OA collectors are slow on the uptick (with a few exceptions) and we have ourselves to blame.

Comic guys are after 1st appearances and keys, and they pounce as soon as there's even a rumor about a character being optioned for a TV show or movie. 

How do OA collectors react?  Well, they react very, very slowly by comparison and perhaps in a year or two the OA guys will start to collectively move on the characters' 1st appearance or OA containing subsequent appearances by that character.

I don't want to generalize, but this seems to be the well-established pattern of OA collectors over the 20 years I've collected OA.

This is also due to the fact there’s more speculation with book collectors wanting books to go up. Many OA collectors are using this time to try to acquire everything on the cheap while talking OA down. I’ve been approached privately recently about my art. The same people never mention they want this art publicly let alone comment. I’m just waiting for these groups of collectors that supress values to turn on each other when values go higher. 🤣

[jsylvester]

On 5/26/2021 at 3:47 PM, Sharkey said:

Yes, an ASM 300 CGC 9.8 newsstand with Todd McFarlane sig sold for $25K on Comiclink last night!!! Crazy. And a regular 9.8 sold for like $7,000 and change. Hard to see in any version of the multiverse how a Todd signature and newsstand could make an $17-18K difference in hammer price.... 

so many speculators are in on this “market” as there are so many collectors with comparable 300 books. The smart money would use this opportunity to get out and funnel the money into OA. I’m seeing this now. I just wonder at what point do prices get so high to where everyone runs to the exit at the same time.

[jsylvester]

On 5/31/2021 at 10:59 AM, Hockeyflow33 said:

I've always thought this was the goal of collecting anything. Every now and then if something really wows you it's okay to overspend but whether it's comics, art, statues, etc who wants to keep chucking money out the window? 

Nothing is better than getting a really nice piece you like for 30% under market value! 

Am I the only collector that only buys what he loves and have an attachment to my art? I’ve overpaid on everything. At least that’s what everyone told me at the time. All those pieces have shot up the most. Today’s market reminds me of 2011/2012. Everyone’s scrambling for high end or particular storyline pages while saying everything’s too high. We all get used to a range and as collectors want to add more to our collections when the gettings good. There are a lot of collectors going after particular pages privately while suppressing pages publicly. Expect some of these collectors to accept the higher prices at auction leading the rest to follow on the way up until we reach a new baseline. This might not happen this year but I’m collecting long term. 

[jsylvester]

On 5/29/2021 at 6:20 PM, KingOfRulers said:

I'm not okay paying above market for any collectible, anytime. My opinion is that the phrase "paying above market" is synonymous with "paying too much". Why would I want to ever pay too much for anything? 

While these days my objective isn't to flip art for a quick profit, I'd like to have the reasonable expectation that if I had to resell immediately, that I could break even.

There's a bunch of "once in a lifetime" pieces that hit the auction block every couple of months.

Everyone values a page differently. What you feel is expensive or above market might be a deal to someone else. That’s why I’ve never listened to anyone that tells me I overpaid. I wouldn’t own anything if I listened to other collectors.