Heritage April Auction 6 6

[jsylvester]

On 3/20/2022 at 6:02 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

$20K max for something good was so 2010.

In 2012, the Shamus collection sold on HA and shook the foundation of our collective understanding of what folks were willing to pay for late 80’s/early 90s OA values.  Call it a quantum leap #1. 
its no secret that we’re presently in the midst of quantum leap #2.  Just can’t put my finger on the trigger…Covid money?  New crypto wealth? Shift in collectibles segmentation?  FOMO? Rising Tides?

I won quite a few lots from the Shamus collection and don’t think we’ve been tested with such a large quantity of quality like that. Tangible assets will continue higher in general and the wealthy that have the purchasing power multiplied. Anything that holds value is being gobbled up. I’m seeing it in cars, watches, and art. We still haven’t seen gold vending machines so get ready. I think it’s a combination of everything you listed and am holding long term. 

[Rick2you2]

On 3/20/2022 at 6:02 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

$20K max for something good was so 2010.

In 2012, the Shamus collection sold on HA and shook the foundation of our collective understanding of what folks were willing to pay for late 80’s/early 90s OA values.  Call it a quantum leap #1. 
its no secret that we’re presently in the midst of quantum leap #2.  Just can’t put my finger on the trigger…Covid money?  New crypto wealth? Shift in collectibles segmentation?  FOMO? Rising Tides?

So are you saying that art for under $20,000 is lousy? Because if you are, then the bulk of my collection ought to make me sad. And, I am willing to wager that a fair number of other people on these boards would be in the same boat. What people are now willing to pay is something I consider extraordinary, but it’s their money. Is this a second paradigm shift? Maybe, collectibles that are hot are a good hedge against inflation. But that’s meaningless if you don’t buy it as an investment. 

[jjonahjameson11]

On 3/20/2022 at 6:48 PM, Rick2you2 said:

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by jjonahjameson11

[cloud cloddie]

On 3/20/2022 at 12:21 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

What I don’t understand is having so many pages from the storyline available at one time.  I get that the seller may be attempting to capitalize on the previous HA results in order to strike while the market is on fire, but with this number of pages available from the Death of Supes, it can only cannibalize sales prices

I think most of the Supes pages are from Bogdanove’s personal collection. He cleaned out his storage unit last year and is probably sitting on a ton of art, so don’t think he’s necessarily worried about getting top dollar. 
 

[tth2]

On 3/21/2022 at 3:21 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

with this number of pages available from the Death of Supes, it can only cannibalize sales prices

Cannibalization is a concept that applies only when there's a finite pool of money available.  If the past year has shown anything, it's that the pool of money available is inexhaustible.  

[tth2]

On 3/21/2022 at 3:17 AM, jsylvester said:

On 3/21/2022 at 12:22 AM, batman_fan said:

If you are really interested in that, you have to wait until the final hammer.  Trying to draw any conclusion at this point is pointless.  I have seen most items slowly climb from the auction start to a day before it closes on line bidding, pop the last day of internet bidding and then potentially explode during the live bidding.

Not always true as I’d rather thin the herd. Removes bidders that might get caught up in the moment. It essentially turns into a reserve.

Exactly. 

Also, the big early bidders are not only people who are genuinely interested in winning a piece.  I would guess that many of these are bids submitted by collectors who are "defending" the price for pieces similar to what they own.  So someone who already owns some really nice Byrne X-Men with Wolverine pages (just picking a random example) but isn't really going for another piece at the moment might put out a high initial bid on someone else's Byrne X-Men with Wolverine pages to do 3 things: 

1.  create excitement over Byrne X-Men with Wolverine pages when everyone sees the prices jump so much from the very start, and stoke the competitive fires in prospective bidders; 

2.  get prospective bidders to mentally recalibrate (aka, get their heads around) what price they're going to have to pay to win it; and

3.  as you say, set a de facto reserve price.  If a Byrne X-Men with Wolverine page goes for under the "reserve price", then it's going into the collection of the "defender" (i.e., he's ensuring that no one is going to get a steal on the page).

Despite what some on these Boards may maintain, this is NOT shilling so long as the "defender" doesn't own the piece himself, is not colluding with the consignor or others, and is willing and able to buy the piece if his is the winning bid.

[tth2]

On 3/21/2022 at 3:37 AM, batman_fan said:

This has happened to me more times than I can remember (most recent being the Hakes Aurora model auction).  I set my limit.  Item surpasses that limit ahead of live bidding, I up my limit.  Hakes had an Aurora Batmobile model kit, 1st series. I didn't even know there was a 1st series.  I estimated $1600 as my limit and ended up bidding to $2162 in live bidding.  Why? someone outbid me and I justified in my mind to bid higher than my prior limit.  I basically said "I will bid it up high enough to be the high bidder and then let the chips go where they may."

Exactly.  Don't underestimate the importance of getting bidders to reset their expectations.

Maybe a page comes on the market and I naively think I can win it for $10k.  If the price is already $20k after the second day of bidding, then I've got to do a gut check as to just how bad I really want the piece.  Some people will indeed immediately drop out, but that simply filters out early on the people who weren't going to be players at the end anyways.  Others will say "Okay, clearly it's not a $10k book, and my initial estimate was way off, but I really want it, so I'm now resetting my maximum bid to $40k".  

Edited March 21, 2022 by tth2

[tth2]

On 3/21/2022 at 6:48 AM, Rick2you2 said:

So are you saying that art for under $20,000 is lousy?

No need to be so defensive.  I think when he said "good", he really meant "high profile" or "high demand".

[Rick2you2]

On 3/21/2022 at 4:51 AM, tth2 said:

No need to be so defensive.  I think when he said "good", he really meant "high profile" or "high demand".

But it does matter, and it deserves to be clarified. Otherwise, collectors who don’t spend gazillions on art are being left with the impression that their taste, and collections, are somehow second-rate and can never be viewed as great because of what they spend. I, personally, have no dog in this fight because I don’t care about market value. To me, it is more interesting to have an image of the Phantom Stranger by an obscure artist than a well-known one because I love to compare art (and I probably have an example by the well-known one). How many times do I have to buy a bit by Aparo to see the style? 

[drdonaldblake1]

On 3/21/2022 at 9:41 PM, Rick2you2 said:

But it does matter, and it deserves to be clarified. Otherwise, collectors who don’t spend gazillions on art are being left with the impression that their taste, and collections, are somehow second-rate and can never be viewed as great because of what they spend. I, personally, have no dog in this fight because I don’t care about market value. To me, it is more interesting to have an image of the Phantom Stranger by an obscure artist than a well-known one because I love to compare art (and I probably have an example by the well-known one). How many times do I have to buy a bit by Aparo to see the style? 

Golden rule in collecting collectibles " buy what you love and you can't go wrong"

Any $ value appreciation , look at it as a bonus🙂

[tth2]

On 3/21/2022 at 7:10 PM, drdonaldblake1 said:

Golden rule in collecting collectibles " buy what you love and you can't go wrong"

Any $ value appreciation , look at it as a bonus🙂

Screw you, hippie! 

[buttock]

On 3/20/2022 at 1:37 PM, batman_fan said:

This has happened to me more times than I can remember (most recent being the Hakes Aurora model auction).  I set my limit.  Item surpasses that limit ahead of live bidding, I up my limit.  Hakes had an Aurora Batmobile model kit, 1st series. I didn't even know there was a 1st series.  I estimated $1600 as my limit and ended up bidding to $2162 in live bidding.  Why? someone outbid me and I justified in my mind to bid higher than my prior limit.  I basically said "I will bid it up high enough to be the high bidder and then let the chips go where they may."

For something that's very rare, unusual, exceptional, etc., the value is unknown.  So it makes sense that we do this in an auction.  The value comes at you in real time as you bid, "oh, someone else thinks it's worth more, so it must be worth more."  For common stuff, that's not the case.  ASM 40 in 6.0 is going to sell for roughly the same every time with incremental margins.  An item for which there are no sales in 5 years... it's worth what you want to pay for it.  

[vodou]

On 3/20/2022 at 7:53 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

Edited 14 hours ago by jjonahjameson11

That's...D E E P.

[jjonahjameson11]

On 3/21/2022 at 10:39 AM, buttock said:

For something that's very rare, unusual, exceptional, etc., the value is unknown.  So it makes sense that we do this in an auction.  The value comes at you in real time as you bid, "oh, someone else thinks it's worth more, so it must be worth more."  For common stuff, that's not the case.  ASM 40 in 6.0 is going to sell for roughly the same every time with incremental margins.  An item for which there are no sales in 5 years... it's worth what you want to pay for it.  

There have been numerous examples over the past 18 months where this has proven incorrect.  DD 168 CGC 9.8 is an excellent example of a fairly common book in grade selling for 4-5x the previous copy.  There are many more noteworthy examples of such behaviour, but since this is an OA thread, let's resume with our regular programming...

[buttock]

On 3/21/2022 at 8:49 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

There have been numerous examples over the past 18 months where this has proven incorrect.  DD 168 CGC 9.8 is an excellent example of a fairly common book in grade selling for 4-5x the previous copy.  There are many more noteworthy examples of such behaviour, but since this is an OA thread, let's resume with our regular programming...

Well we can all pull an example out of something that is an exception to the rule, but the general principle remains true.  

[vodou]

On 3/21/2022 at 4:39 AM, tth2 said:

Despite what some on these Boards may maintain, this is NOT shilling so long as the "defender" doesn't own the piece himself, is not colluding with the consignor or others, and is willing and able to buy the piece if his is the winning bid.

Show of hands: who's in the category that doesn't get and agree with this?

Maybe nobody (I hope!)

[vodou]

On 3/21/2022 at 6:41 AM, Rick2you2 said:

Otherwise, collectors who don’t spend gazillions on art are being left with the impression that their taste, and collections, are somehow second-rate and can never be viewed as great because of what they spend.

This is a maturity thing, as in: lack of maturity, if you enjoy what you collect until you find out others don't and then you don't either.

Whatever.

[jjonahjameson11]

On 3/21/2022 at 10:52 AM, buttock said:

Well we can all pull an example out of something that is an exception to the rule, but the general principle remains true.  

As I mentioned, numerous examples

[buttock]

On 3/21/2022 at 9:04 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

As I mentioned, numerous examples

Yes, you did.  

[batman_fan]

I remember being at a Wondercon back when it was in Oakland.  I had my art portfolio with me and was at Bachara’s booth.  He asked to look at what I had so I showed him.  The look on his face was priceless.  You could tell he was thinking “this guys is part of the unwashed masses”.  He politely handed it back to me and said “nothing I’m interested in”.