• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

NJ Art Con August 28th
3 3

Started by Unstoppablejayd,

230 posts in this topic

Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 11:47 AM, KirbyCollector said:

It is helpful to remember this stale inventory was purchased for, in may cases, peanuts. Carrying pages you paid $25 (or less) for 20 years ago while waiting for that 1 in 10,000 guy to buy it at 40x your original investment is no skin off your teeth.

It isn’t so much high carrying costs as recycling the funds to more profitable uses. If you paid $25 for a page, was that increase for 20 years linear, accelerating, deaccelerating or flat? What about mediocre Silver or Bronze Age pages? Assuming we are not dealing with a hot collectible, does it make sense to hold on if the new hot part of the market is 1990’s art? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
vodou

vodou

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 11:43 AM, Rick2you2 said:

…but the truth is that a lot of OA is not and never will be hot even if technically a “luxury good”.

I bought my first original art in 1993 and I kicked it into high gear as a collecting/life focus over everything else, even in lieu of eating a healthy at times, in the late 90s.

I was buying everything in sight that I had any marginal interest in, meaning I had read the book or the book had been referenced by a book I had read and enjoyed as a flashback or whatever, that I could afford. This was the days of early wild eBay when literally anything could pop up at any time in any category and a lot of the owners just wanted to get their money back from something they bought in the 80s off an artists alley table. If you found it when no one else was looking or happened to have the spare money when others didn’t, you could win things very very cheaply. For the most part all 1980s Marvel art was priced about the same and no real curatorial distinction existed aside from Perez, Byrne, and a few others. All else was: filler and priced as such. we didn’t know then which ones would take hold in which wouldn’t, but if you were smart (me) you bought it all and let the market sort out the future on its own.

In very short order I had several hundred then several thousand originals, without even trying just buying anything of marginal interest if it was under $100 and stuff I really liked for no more than a few hundred. There were ceilings everywhere, I was the floor.

Then as now there was a vocal aspect to the hobby from some more experienced collectors about reducing quantity through selling and trading to increase quality. Lotta fancy words there, it just meant selling or trading 50 pieces for $100 each to buy one or two for $5,000 where writing that cold check wasn’t easy or feasible. The tacit assumption of the argument was that the ratios always stay the same. Not true!

Naturally, as a savvy (ha ha!) and motivated collector/investor and wanting to move up to a higher tier of “better quality” I did engage in this practice…briefly. Then I actually did get savvy.

Without trying too hard I could show any of you at least 10 lots in every heritage Wednesday sale that I owned or were adjacent to what I owned, that was filler then and is now very very hot and hammers exactly as you would expect. Rik Levins Capwolf cover anyone? All those Kieron Dwyer Cap interiors over at Hakes recently :) None of that was of interest to anybody but me in 1999 and it could ALL be bought for $300 total…including the cover and shipping.

25 years time has turned garbage into treasure, plain and simple. I understand when you’re an old dude and your timeline is a decade or so out until casket day, you can’t wait that stuff out. But when I was in my 20s back then and I’m in my 50th year now, for 99% of it I did wait it out and I’m absolutely shocked at what people pay now for garbage I almost threw in as freebies when I sold something a little bit nicer. That stuff now goes to signature sales!

I still think it’s garbage but the bidders do not, and that’s actually all that matters. that’s why I stopped selling and trading, I realized there was something in me that was not connecting with the rest of the hobby regarding ratios and relative values so I just stopped. Thank God! I didn’t then and don’t now need to understand “why” to enjoy the outcome :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 12:31 PM, Rick2you2 said:

It isn’t so much high carrying costs as recycling the funds to more profitable uses. If you paid $25 for a page, was that increase for 20 years linear, accelerating, deaccelerating or flat? What about mediocre Silver or Bronze Age pages? Assuming we are not dealing with a hot collectible, does it make sense to hold on if the new hot part of the market is 1990’s art? 

Econ 101: churning for a target percent is what you do in flat markets. in a hot market, even if a particular category is slower than another, you hold on for dear life because rotations happen faster than you can blink at times! any trader that makes it past five years will tell you the death of a traitor is overtrading 🤮

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/5/2022 at 12:36 PM, vodou said:

Econ 101: churning for a target percent is what you do in flat markets. in a hot market, even if a particular category is slower than another, you hold on for dear life because rotations happen faster than you can blink at times! any trader that makes it past five years will tell you the death of a traitor is overtrading 🤮

Yeah, the churn isn’t practical.    In theory , whatever.   In practice, the stuff you sell isn’t the same as the stuff you buy.    If you force a sale to chase something else you may well be selling relatively  low to buy relatively  high.    Often more efficient to just hang on and do nothing. 
 

If you sell something high, sure , you can reinvest proceeds.   But you can’t force it.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 12:36 PM, vodou said:

Econ 101: churning for a target percent is what you do in flat markets. in a hot market, even if a particular category is slower than another, you hold on for dear life because rotations happen faster than you can blink at times! any trader that makes it past five years will tell you the death of a traitor is overtrading 🤮

But isn’t this assuming that all OA should be treated as a single market? You yourself found that some things shot up and some didn’t, including some where the quality of work as a function of price was inexplicable. If the market price of some pieces barely moves up, because the public isn’t buying, lowering the price makes sense. Will there ever be a growing market for Bomba, the Jungle Boy (even though I like Jack Sparling)? I don’t see that as churning, just pruning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aahz

Aahz

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 4:08 PM, Rick2you2 said:

But isn’t this assuming that all OA should be treated as a single market? You yourself found that some things shot up and some didn’t, including some where the quality of work as a function of price was inexplicable. If the market price of some pieces barely moves up, because the public isn’t buying, lowering the price makes sense. Will there ever be a growing market for Bomba, the Jungle Boy (even though I like Jack Sparling)? I don’t see that as churning, just pruning. 

You had to go and bash Bomba ...  :-) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 5:08 PM, Rick2you2 said:

But isn’t this assuming that all OA should be treated as a single market

No. As a single asset class yes.

On 9/5/2022 at 5:08 PM, Rick2you2 said:

You yourself found that some things shot up and some didn’t, including some where the quality of work as a function of price was inexplicable

Actually all shot up, but not all at the same time or the same rate of increase at the same time.

There is no Snark intended here but to be clear you’ve vastly over paid for Jack Sparling, those you bought Jack Sparling from were very happy to cash out from what they paid in the 90s and 80s (closer to $10 than $100 per piece). Again, not everyone of those sellers is even alive today with us so one’s own lifespan within a market maturation process matters quite a bit too!

I’m not going to say that everybody that bought art the last 10 years has bought badly, but let’s say it’s less goodly than those that bought 20 years ago. you were either there then or you weren’t, and sometimes that’s just the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 5:08 PM, Rick2you2 said:

But isn’t this assuming that all OA should be treated as a single market? You yourself found that some things shot up and some didn’t, including some where the quality of work as a function of price was inexplicable. If the market price of some pieces barely moves up, because the public isn’t buying, lowering the price makes sense. Will there ever be a growing market for Bomba, the Jungle Boy (even though I like Jack Sparling)? I don’t see that as churning, just pruning. 

 

Call me crazy but I'm going to go with the idea that after selling for decades guys like Mr Mustache might have learned a thing or two.   

Stuff like Bomba is junk at any price to anybody except like four people.    It doesn't so much matter whether you price it at $200 or $300, its not selling either way.    The price isn't as important as whether or not you have one of the four correct people in front of you.

Discounting it doesn't do anything except get you less when you eventually find someone who actually wants it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/5/2022 at 5:55 PM, vodou said:

There is no Snark intended here but to be clear you’ve vastly over paid for Jack Sparling, those you bought Jack Sparling from were very happy to cash out from what they paid in the 90s and 80s (closer to $10 than $100 per piece). Again, not everyone of those sellers is even alive today with us so one’s own lifespan within a market maturation process matters quite a bit too!

You’ll be happy to hear, then, that I don’t own any Jack Sparling pieces, and never did. But, if I saw a published Phantom Stranger piece by him for $300, I might skip it, even though I might give it a shot for $150.

Would many of you consider that money wasted? Perhaps, but it wouldn’t be any worse than some of those commissions people buy. To me, it is about having fun—like fake Sugar & Spike covers. I don’t buy for investment, I don’t spend much money on pieces, and would not be broken-hearted if the market crashed—not out of any sense of malice, by the way. When 2032 comes around, I hope you make a fortune, and that’s true for everyone here, except if someone won’t sell me what I want at a price in my comfort zone.

Edited by Rick2you2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2022 at 7:19 PM, Rick2you2 said:

You’ll be happy to hear, then, that I don’t own any Jack Sparling pieces, and never did.

Mmmmmm…we’re you lying then or now because I’ve a pretty good memory and remember you posting a few years ago that you had picked one or more Jack Sparlings. From ComicLink, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Voord

The Voord

Posted
Posted
On 9/6/2022 at 12:24 AM, vodou said:

Mmmmmm…we’re you lying then or now because I’ve a pretty good memory and remember you posting a few years ago that you had picked one or more Jack Sparlings. From ComicLink, I believe.

:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/5/2022 at 7:24 PM, vodou said:

Mmmmmm…we’re you lying then or now because I’ve a pretty good memory and remember you posting a few years ago that you had picked one or more Jack Sparlings. From ComicLink, I believe.

You confused me there for a few minutes. I spent $600 on one of his “Pin-up Pete” bits of cheesecake from the Korean War era, and I would happily do it again (there have been others for sale). But, it wasn’t from ComicLink. So yes, I do own one, but not what I was looking for. 

Edited by Rick2you2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted

I’m pretty sure it was on CLink, so you likely bought it from the winner there at a healthy flip markup. So it goes, but back to the point at $600 you did vastly overpay. It is possible the overall market move up the next decade will bail you out of it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3
Go to topic listing