Does Familiarity Breed Devaluation?

[Artemaria]

This is theory that had been previously raised on these boards. I really didn't think about it too much until . . . .

 

I recently heard the opposite from someone else who told me that a page will go for alot more than expected because it "is a fresh page on the market." I took that to mean that the value of the page would increase because it had not been offered for sale repeatedly. And indeed the page went for more than I (or it appears anyone else) expected.

 

Is there any empirical evidence about this perceived phenomenon? If there is, can anyone direct me to it (no board discussion references please).

 

Also, taking this to its logical conclusion, should CAF shut down because of the supposed art devaluation it causes?

[Jesusjon]

There's a big difference between a piece repeatedly offerred for sale (or sitting on a website for sale for a long time) and one that sits in a collector's gallery as NFS for a long time. There are sometimes several individuals waiting for that NFS to change to a "taking offers"

 

As for empirical evidence, hit the market data tab on CAF and start looking at how the pieces do that come to market again and again and again over a short period of time. A lot of the time the value goes downhill. Of course, if you start off with 5 people being interested in a piece, and 3 of them owning it at one time or another... Sometimes, it's a small hobby.

[artdealer]

I often recieve quite a few pieces of art that have not been on the market for 20-30 years. Those are fresh to the market. They will garner higher prices because they haven't been shopped around to death, so long as you don't shop them around to death.

 

I've sold quite a few freah to the market pieces and have a bunch of art going to San Diego Con that is freah to the market.

 

Mitch I.

Graphic Collectibles

[snappahead]

I can understand how a piece that's been on the market for a long time will decrease in value, but I've also heard people argue that simply displaying a piece (at CAF for example) will decrease it's overall market value. I never really understood that though. Why does something that's not available for sale decrease in value simply because there's a scan of it on the internet? Maybe this is something only the high rollers understand.

[Mighty Hal]

If something goes on the eBay block often enough, it can decrease my interest in the piece. It's like the girl that's been "visited" by the entire football team; too much familiarity has bred contempt.

 

On the other hand, my interest in a piece is most often piqued because I've seen it before -- either as a reader or someone skimming through the CAF collections or because it's been used in advertisements or the like. Would the Mona Lisa have become an iconic image if the Louvre had kept it out of public view?

 

I'll always pay more for a published piece than an unpublished piece. When the recent PLASM #0 cover came up on eBay recently, I wanted it because of its artwork, its history, its artist...and because I'd seen it EVERYWHERE when Defiant was launched. Unfortunately, somebody with deeper pockets wanted the cover more (and all good luck to 'im).

[doom-migration]

I agree with hal, art that has been on ebay 3 times does not interest me as much. For example, someone is selling a dr doom prelim cover by mcniven on ebay, it is a cool piece but this is the 3rd or 4th time I have seen it on ebay. SO to me, I am thinking, what is wrong with it, is it stained, fake, something, it might be nothing, but in my mind I am thinking there is something wrong with it. However, when I go to a dr doom web page or a heroes site and they are using an image of Dr Doom that I own (not as many as I would like). I love it. I'm like, I own that baby! So like Hal said, if it is always up for sale every 2 months, then yes I think the value goes down. And I am proud to show what I own on CAF, I put a lot of hard earned dollars (and I don't make a lot-never have) into building my collection over the past 10 years. I love CAF web site, I can see what others collect and admire their collections, it is basically an electronic museum, and if someone devalues art because it is on their, they are not true collectors and won't be around long. So familiarity of seeing the art,I think increases the value of the art. so does that mean if I see someones page I like on CAF I can get it for a discount dang, I didn't think so, but thought I might try.....take care all.......DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MedicAR]

I'll always pay more for a published piece than an unpublished piece. When the recent PLASM #0 cover came up on eBay recently, I wanted it because of its artwork, its history, its artist...and because I'd seen it EVERYWHERE when Defiant was launched. Unfortunately, somebody with deeper pockets wanted the cover more (and all good luck to 'im).

 

I really wanted that cover too, but I wound up with the first page instead. Of course, when I bought the first page, I didn't know the cover was coming up for sale. Regardless, I'm happy and paid less than 20% of what the cover went for. Not as famous an image, but the item still holds happy memories.

 

As far as the topic at hand, I think it depends on several components of the particular item for sale. I lusted for an Al Williamson/Frank Frazetta John Wayne page for years. It came up on eBay every few months, and every time it went for more and more money. Now, did it go up because I raised my bid every time it came to market? Or was it going to go to that level anyway? Is it the exception that proves the rule? I mean, it is Williamson/Frazetta. It has a classic western image of the gunfight in a wide bottom panel. Plus, it's John Wayne, not a heavily collected title, but an icon that has its own collectors. It's also upward of 50 years old.

 

On the other hand, I've seen some sketches from more modern artists come up again and again on eBay sometimes bringing more each time, sometimes breaking even or even decreasing. Is it familiarity or was the first buyer a really big fan and managed to upgrade to a nicer item? Is it the fact that the artist is still available and after a bidding war, one or more parties came to their senses and refused to go wild bidding again?

 

I think familiarity is a broad term too. Like Hal said, he wanted the Plasm art for a variety of reasons including he'd "seen it EVERYWHERE" back in the day. That kind of familiarity makes a piece more desirable, not less. But the same style of scribbled Spidey sketch from the flavor of the month is just lazy and boring. That kind of familiarity, whether it's the actual same sketch or a series of similar ones, would hurt prices. But then there's the example of the famous John Romita Sr. Spidey/Peter Parker sketch, I gave $200 for one of those framed. It's a classic image and I wasn't able to get one from him last year at SDCC, despite a Herculean effort. Is a pencil sketch on a back board worth it? It was to me, that particular image has a familiarity that made it incredibly desirable to me.

 

To sum it all up, here's what I look at when I'm considering a purchase.

 

1. Is it attractive? Bottom line, would I put it on the wall and be proud of it? I'll even accept lesser known artists if I like the work itself.

 

2. Is it classic? Is it an image I've seen before and recognize instantly? These are tough to come by, so you may have to accept that it is a classic style or pose even if it's not the actual image you know and love. For example, I can't afford (and likely never will) the original cover to Hulk #181. But, if Herb Trimpe does a Wolverine for me in that same pose, it's a pretty darned good substitute.

 

3. Do I know/admire/respect the artist? I'll rarely plunk down good money on an unknown unless it's an exceptionally nice item. They don't have to be "stars" in the business, but it helps if I'm at least familiar with their work.

 

4. Did the artist create the character? This one is HUGE for me. I've tracked down an Everett Subby, a Shuster Superman, a Bob Kane Batman, a Nodell GL, an Eisner Spirit, etc. I am absolutely certain I paid entirely too much for many of them, at least by the market's standard, but I was comfortable with what I gave and love what I came away with. A Ditko Spider-man is my ultimate grail item, but I think I would actually have an easier time finding the true Holy Grail than finding and affording one of those. Which brings me to....

 

5. Can I afford it? It seems stupid to have to consider it, but I've gone in over my head a time or two and really regretted it later, even though I had a great one-of-a-kind item. It's ink on paper, and even if it's really pretty ink by a great artist, it's definitely not more important than your next meal or house payment.

 

6. Am I really buying a "space holder?" This one crosses my mind, but usually isn't crucial to the final purchase decision. Am I buying a reatively cheap Romita Sr. Spidey page where the hero is in a single panel just to have a Romita Spidey? Am I likely to ever find a better example of Romita's Spidey? I've done this. I bought a page just to have a particular character by a particular artist. Sometimes it only whets the appetite, sometimes it quenches the desire.

 

Wow...I've really strayed a long ways.

 

Bottom line? Define familiarity. Is it the exact same item over and over or is it a similar item by the same artist? Is it familiar because the image was everywhere at one time or another or because you've seen it on CAF for the last year? For me, there's a comfort in familiarity. Because, in my opinion anyway, an image usually becomes familiar because it's a true classic. And I'll always pay more for a classic.

[Artemaria]

I really buying a "space holder?" This one crosses my mind, but usually isn't crucial to the final purchase decision. Am I buying a reatively cheap Romita Sr. Spidey page where the hero is in a single panel just to have a Romita Spidey? Am I likely to ever find a better example of Romita's Spidey? I've done this. I bought a page just to have a particular character by a particular artist. Sometimes it only whets the appetite, sometimes it quenches the desire.

 

Wow...I've really strayed a long ways.

 

Bottom line? Define familiarity. Is it the exact same item over and over or is it a similar item by the same artist? Is it familiar because the image was everywhere at one time or another or because you've seen it on CAF for the last year? For me, there's a comfort in familiarity. Because, in my opinion anyway, an image usually becomes familiar because it's a true classic. And I'll always pay more for a classic.

 

Medic -

 

You have some great points, but these two interest me the most, so I'll focus on them.

 

I've often thought about whether to buy or whether I have bought a "space holder." This is an interesting question, because there are two options when you find that next really good page that you like so much and is at a good price for you (generally) as a buyer. I've wondered (and I am not there yet) whether I would sell the original place holder page or keep both. I don't know. I only have one place holder in my collection. It is a Travis Charest because I absolutely love his art and wanted to have a piece of it. On the other hand, it is a very early example with the Darkstars. I like the page, but I cannot afford anything by Travis that I like more right now. So this place holder falls into the satisfy the appetite for the time being, but not really. I'm just waiting for that catastrophic crash in the Charest market to get my next page. !

 

 

As to your second point - "define familiarity" - I guess the question is exposure. Some people have posted that if a piece is shopped around to death, then it will seem less valuable, which I can understand, and which makes sense.

 

But is the mere presence of an image on CAF enough to devalue a valuable piece? While apparently everyone on CAF doesn't think so, some people might. There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

Is this because these people are really crazy wealthy and don't bother with CAF (or don't want people to know their identities). Or is it because they believe that if the piece gets exposure, then it will lose some value. I can't quantify it, but something (1%, 6%, 15%) who knows?

 

For the record, I love CAF. It is my favorite site on the web, and I think the term "electronic museum" is an excellent description for it. It is an amazing place to see awesome comic art and meet other collectors.

 

The only reason for this post is because I was wondering about whether there is any validity to points raised elsewhere on these boards.

 

- A

[Mister Trent]

There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

- A

 

The are lots of unbelievable pieces of art on CAF.

 

It all depends on personal taste.

 

One man's meat . . .

 

KILLING JOKE, DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Byrne/Austin X-MEN covers, etc, don't really do a lot for me (though I do appreciate and recognize the importance/attraction for many collectors), but there are certainly lots of (to my mind) unbelievable pieces on CAF.

 

 

[heartened]

I really buying a "space holder?" This one crosses my mind, but usually isn't crucial to the final purchase decision. Am I buying a reatively cheap Romita Sr. Spidey page where the hero is in a single panel just to have a Romita Spidey? Am I likely to ever find a better example of Romita's Spidey? I've done this. I bought a page just to have a particular character by a particular artist. Sometimes it only whets the appetite, sometimes it quenches the desire.

 

Wow...I've really strayed a long ways.

 

Bottom line? Define familiarity. Is it the exact same item over and over or is it a similar item by the same artist? Is it familiar because the image was everywhere at one time or another or because you've seen it on CAF for the last year? For me, there's a comfort in familiarity. Because, in my opinion anyway, an image usually becomes familiar because it's a true classic. And I'll always pay more for a classic.

 

Medic -

 

You have some great points, but these two interest me the most, so I'll focus on them.

 

I've often thought about whether to buy or whether I have bought a "space holder." This is an interesting question, because there are two options when you find that next really good page that you like so much and is at a good price for you (generally) as a buyer. I've wondered (and I am not there yet) whether I would sell the original place holder page or keep both. I don't know. I only have one place holder in my collection. It is a Travis Charest because I absolutely love his art and wanted to have a piece of it. On the other hand, it is a very early example with the Darkstars. I like the page, but I cannot afford anything by Travis that I like more right now. So this place holder falls into the satisfy the appetite for the time being, but not really. I'm just waiting for that catastrophic crash in the Charest market to get my next page. !

 

 

As to your second point - "define familiarity" - I guess the question is exposure. Some people have posted that if a piece is shopped around to death, then it will seem less valuable, which I can understand, and which makes sense.

 

But is the mere presence of an image on CAF enough to devalue a valuable piece? While apparently everyone on CAF doesn't think so, some people might. There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

Is this because these people are really crazy wealthy and don't bother with CAF (or don't want people to know their identities). Or is it because they believe that if the piece gets exposure, then it will lose some value. I can't quantify it, but something (1%, 6%, 15%) who knows?

 

For the record, I love CAF. It is my favorite site on the web, and I think the term "electronic museum" is an excellent description for it. It is an amazing place to see awesome comic art and meet other collectors.

 

The only reason for this post is because I was wondering about whether there is any validity to points raised elsewhere on these boards.

 

- A

 

KJ cover, DK covers? We need to find them first, before we can put them on CAF! Seriously, though, I think the big-ticket items are NOT on CAF because owners don't want to get hassled with a barrage of cash offers. No chance in Hell that displaying those would DECREASE their value. On the contrary, I'm sure all the high rollers would keep upping their offers to get them.

[Artemaria]

There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

- A

 

The are lots of unbelievable pieces of art on CAF.

 

It all depends on personal taste.

 

One man's meat . . .

 

KILLING JOKE, DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Byrne/Austin X-MEN covers, etc, don't really do a lot for me (though I do appreciate and recognize the importance/attraction for many collectors), but there are certainly lots of (to my mind) unbelievable pieces on CAF.

 

 

Trent -

 

This is true, but I think you get my point, which is while there is a colossal amount of unbelievable stuff on CAF (and some of it is in your gallery, I might add), there is not that much what I would consider essentially immortal or unattainable stuff on CAF. Or at least not that I've found.

 

For example, let's take a piece like the Marshall Rogers cover to Detective 475. Once owned by Hari of these boards. Sold. Not on CAF. In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of the buyer, that was the cover of two of the best drawn issues of Detective. To me, it's a fairly significant piece.

 

As for your cup of tea, are there any Ditko ASM covers on CAF? I for sure didn't notice any. There are some sweet Ditko ASM pages (Nick Katradis has a couple where Spidey is fighting Goblin), but no cover. Those covers are fairly significant pieces. Not on CAF.

 

So, I agree with you that there are some unbelievable pieces on CAF. As I hope you would see my point that there are some things that are not there, and I was wondering if potential devaluation was a possible reason . . which brings us to

 

Hari ---

 

I can see your reason as being a very logical possibility. It would make sense that the "high rollers" who own those pieces don't want to be bothered with constant cash offers of items that are not for sale.

 

But, if you know any such people, maybe CAF could have a "museum" week or something and then these things could be posted, no one could know who owned them and they would be in a special "museum" gallery on CAF which would not have any contact information. Thus normal people like myself could see these works and enjoy them, even for a limited time. It wouldn't be that much work on behalf of the people who own the pieces, just e-mailing a scan.

 

What do you think are the odds of that happening? I think the odds of that happening are zero, even though it would address the potential buyers contacting issue. I think that in some people's minds, there is an exclusivity in owning a piece and shielding it from public view. I think that in these people's minds, there would be some unquantifiable effect of having the piece available for public view and that the unquantifiable effect could translate to some potential devaluation in their minds -- or not.

 

Maybe it is just a power play.

 

I don't know. But it just strikes me that so many significant historical pieces are not on CAF, even though it is the best web site of its kind.

 

- A

[MedicAR]

Medic -

 

You have some great points, but these two interest me the most, so I'll focus on them.

 

I've often thought about whether to buy or whether I have bought a "space holder." This is an interesting question, because there are two options when you find that next really good page that you like so much and is at a good price for you (generally) as a buyer. I've wondered (and I am not there yet) whether I would sell the original place holder page or keep both. I don't know. I only have one place holder in my collection. It is a Travis Charest because I absolutely love his art and wanted to have a piece of it. On the other hand, it is a very early example with the Darkstars. I like the page, but I cannot afford anything by Travis that I like more right now. So this place holder falls into the satisfy the appetite for the time being, but not really. I'm just waiting for that catastrophic crash in the Charest market to get my next page. !

 

 

As to your second point - "define familiarity" - I guess the question is exposure. Some people have posted that if a piece is shopped around to death, then it will seem less valuable, which I can understand, and which makes sense.

 

But is the mere presence of an image on CAF enough to devalue a valuable piece? While apparently everyone on CAF doesn't think so, some people might. There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

Is this because these people are really crazy wealthy and don't bother with CAF (or don't want people to know their identities). Or is it because they believe that if the piece gets exposure, then it will lose some value. I can't quantify it, but something (1%, 6%, 15%) who knows?

 

For the record, I love CAF. It is my favorite site on the web, and I think the term "electronic museum" is an excellent description for it. It is an amazing place to see awesome comic art and meet other collectors.

 

The only reason for this post is because I was wondering about whether there is any validity to points raised elsewhere on these boards.

 

- A

 

Artemaria-

 

I absolutely love this topic! You've made me think about and analyze my OA collecting more in the last 2-3 days than I ever have!

 

I can see your Charest piece being a space holder. It will suffice until you find an item more in line with what it is you love about his art. I did it with an Al Williamson page from Superman or Action comics (I can't recall, right now) it is a splash by Curt Swan with Al's inks on it. Don't get overly excited, the splash is a bird's eye view of Clark Kent in the unemployment line (please keep the "oooo-ing and ahhhhh-ing to a minimum ). Certainly not an ideal Williamson page, but it has served its purpose for the last few years. I've got the nice Williamson page now, but I think I'll keep the Superman page simply for sentimental reasons. It was among the first OA I purchased.

 

And you never know about a crash in the market for a particular artist. I'll probably sound dumb here (like that's a first) but for years, I didn't really get into the fan press. I didn't know about creators other than in their letters pages or other bios in comics. I'd always loved Cerebus, but being in Arkansas, it was difficult to pick it up regularly in the pre-internet days. I had no idea that Dave Sim had apparently offended so many reader with his "misogynistic" views and Cerebus apparently took a dip in sales. I don't know that it affected sales of his art, heck I didn't even know there was a problem. It was around issue #185 for those that want to know more. I'm still waiting to get a few books so I can read the series from beginning to end. I'm just saying it can happen. Is it likely? Not really.

 

Shopped around is what kept driving the price up on the Williamson/Frazetta item I wanted. Every time it came up, I'd go $100 or more over what it sold for the previous time (the first sale I think was for around $450) and it would generally go another $100 beyond that. Again, though, is it the exception that proves the rule? I don't know. An eBayer by the name of docgreen or something similar owns it now, if anyone is familiar with a "doc" or "doctor" something OA collector, let me know. I've lost his email.

 

I'm new to CAF, and having an absolute ball there! I could look at page after page for days on end and be entertained and amazed every time.

[Mister Trent]

There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

- A

 

The are lots of unbelievable pieces of art on CAF.

 

It all depends on personal taste.

 

One man's meat . . .

 

KILLING JOKE, DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Byrne/Austin X-MEN covers, etc, don't really do a lot for me (though I do appreciate and recognize the importance/attraction for many collectors), but there are certainly lots of (to my mind) unbelievable pieces on CAF.

 

 

Trent -

 

This is true, but I think you get my point, which is while there is a colossal amount of unbelievable stuff on CAF (and some of it is in your gallery, I might add), there is not that much what I would consider essentially immortal or unattainable stuff on CAF. Or at least not that I've found.

 

For example, let's take a piece like the Marshall Rogers cover to Detective 475. Once owned by Hari of these boards. Sold. Not on CAF. In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of the buyer, that was the cover of two of the best drawn issues of Detective. To me, it's a fairly significant piece.

 

As for your cup of tea, are there any Ditko ASM covers on CAF? I for sure didn't notice any. There are some sweet Ditko ASM pages (Nick Katradis has a couple where Spidey is fighting Goblin), but no cover. Those covers are fairly significant pieces. Not on CAF.

 

So, I agree with you that there are some unbelievable pieces on CAF. As I hope you would see my point that there are some things that are not there, and I was wondering if potential devaluation was a possible reason . .

 

- A

 

Marshall Rogers . . . with the exception of his DC adaptation of Harlan Ellison's classic OL teleplay, "Demon With a Glass Hand" . . . something like his cover to DETECTIVE # 475 is of absolutely no interest to me, personally.

 

As for Ditko ASM covers . . . no, there are none currently on CAF. At one time, Tom Neal had the cover to ASM # 30 - and he had it on display in his Lowry Gallery on Comicart-l. In fact, Tom once owned the cover to CAPTAIN ATOM # 80 - which subsequently found its way to me. The CAPTAIN ATOM cover could be classed as ' unattainable'. I've had a number of dealers and high-end collectors approach me to trade or sell that one. It's going to remain unattainable.

 

Sure, I see where you're coming from, but I think you're tossing around words like "unbelievable" and "unattainable" a little too freely . . . and some of your ideas for "unbelievable/unattainable" pieces of art are probably more relevant to a specific audience.

 

Yes, there are lots of wonderful pieces of art (that must surely be out there) not displayed on CAF. I think there are a multitude of reasons why they're not there - and it's fine identifying one of the possible reasons, as long as you consider the others and put things into perspective.

 

Lot's of 'unbelievable' pieces on CAF . . . lots of 'unbelievable' pieces not on CAF . .

 

And as a quick post--script, Tom Neal ended-up selling his (unbelievable/unattainable) Ditko ASM # 30 cover . . .

[Nexus]

I can understand how a piece that's been on the market for a long time will decrease in value, but I've also heard people argue that simply displaying a piece (at CAF for example) will decrease it's overall market value. I never really understood that though. Why does something that's not available for sale decrease in value simply because there's a scan of it on the internet? Maybe this is something only the high rollers understand.

 

As others have noted, the "good stuff" will always be in demand regardless if it's been on the internet, in a CAF gallery, or the like. An example: A long-time veteran OA collector has, in the last year, begun to liquidate a large portion of his collection. He's getting top-dollar for his art...and all of it has been in his CAF gallery for years. There's been zero effect on the art's saleability...believe me, I wish there was!

[Nexus]

There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

- A

 

The are lots of unbelievable pieces of art on CAF.

 

It all depends on personal taste.

 

One man's meat . . .

 

KILLING JOKE, DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Byrne/Austin X-MEN covers, etc, don't really do a lot for me (though I do appreciate and recognize the importance/attraction for many collectors), but there are certainly lots of (to my mind) unbelievable pieces on CAF.

 

 

Trent -

 

This is true, but I think you get my point, which is while there is a colossal amount of unbelievable stuff on CAF (and some of it is in your gallery, I might add), there is not that much what I would consider essentially immortal or unattainable stuff on CAF. Or at least not that I've found.

 

For example, let's take a piece like the Marshall Rogers cover to Detective 475. Once owned by Hari of these boards. Sold. Not on CAF. In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of the buyer, that was the cover of two of the best drawn issues of Detective. To me, it's a fairly significant piece.

 

As for your cup of tea, are there any Ditko ASM covers on CAF? I for sure didn't notice any. There are some sweet Ditko ASM pages (Nick Katradis has a couple where Spidey is fighting Goblin), but no cover. Those covers are fairly significant pieces. Not on CAF.

 

So, I agree with you that there are some unbelievable pieces on CAF. As I hope you would see my point that there are some things that are not there, and I was wondering if potential devaluation was a possible reason . . which brings us to

 

Hari ---

 

I can see your reason as being a very logical possibility. It would make sense that the "high rollers" who own those pieces don't want to be bothered with constant cash offers of items that are not for sale.

 

But, if you know any such people, maybe CAF could have a "museum" week or something and then these things could be posted, no one could know who owned them and they would be in a special "museum" gallery on CAF which would not have any contact information. Thus normal people like myself could see these works and enjoy them, even for a limited time. It wouldn't be that much work on behalf of the people who own the pieces, just e-mailing a scan.

 

What do you think are the odds of that happening? I think the odds of that happening are zero, even though it would address the potential buyers contacting issue. I think that in some people's minds, there is an exclusivity in owning a piece and shielding it from public view. I think that in these people's minds, there would be some unquantifiable effect of having the piece available for public view and that the unquantifiable effect could translate to some potential devaluation in their minds -- or not.

 

Maybe it is just a power play.

 

I don't know. But it just strikes me that so many significant historical pieces are not on CAF, even though it is the best web site of its kind.

 

- A

H A,

 

Enjoy reading your posts. Here are a few thoughts off the top of my head:

 

1. True, there is no KJ cover or DKR covers, but there are at least a couple of Byrne/Austin X-MEN covers on CAF.

 

2. Unless I'm mistaken, there are only a small handful Ditko ASM covers known to exist.

 

3. You love CAF, I love CAF, but that certainly doesn't mean everyone else does. I love showing off my stuff, but some people don't or can't be bothered. To each their own. I don't believe that this is necessarily some "anti-display" agenda going on. There could be a myriad of reasons.

 

4. As Mr. Trent noted, everyone's idea of "unbelievable/unattainable" is different.

 

Felix

[delekkerste]

As others have noted, the "good stuff" will always be in demand regardless if it's been on the internet, in a CAF gallery, or the like. An example: A long-time veteran OA collector has, in the last year, begun to liquidate a large portion of his collection. He's getting top-dollar for his art...and all of it has been in his CAF gallery for years. There's been zero effect on the art's saleability...believe me, I wish there was!

 

I don't think familiarity breeds devaluation...it's more like availability breeds devaluation. If you see the same piece show up on eBay ten times without selling or if a piece keeps getting flipped from owner to owner to owner, it's going to devalue the piece because it appears like it's always available and that either no one wants to buy it or that no one cares enough to hang onto it. On the other hand, just displaying a piece in one's CAF gallery or otherwise letting people you know you have something is not necessarily going to devalue a piece if it retains an aura of unavailability.

 

Besides, what was it that Hannibal Lecter said in "Silence of the Lambs"? Something about coveting things that we see every day?

[Artemaria]

As for Ditko ASM covers . . . no, there are none currently on CAF. At one time, Tom Neal had the cover to ASM # 30 - and he had it on display in his Lowry Gallery on Comicart-l. In fact, Tom once owned the cover to CAPTAIN ATOM # 80 - which subsequently found its way to me. The CAPTAIN ATOM cover could be classed as ' unattainable'. I've had a number of dealers and high-end collectors approach me to trade or sell that one. It's going to remain unattainable.

 

Sure, I see where you're coming from, but I think you're tossing around words like "unbelievable" and "unattainable" a little too freely . . . and some of your ideas for "unbelievable/unattainable" pieces of art are probably more relevant to a specific audience.

 

Trent -

 

Your point is well taken, namely that because art is so subjective, there are precious few pieces of art that can be universally considered unattainable/unavailable. In my examples I tried to include something that would mean alot to me, as well as something that would mean alot to you.

 

Maybe one or two things that can be considered unattainable/unavailable would be the cover to Action Comics No. 1 or Marvel Comics No. 1, or something like that, if either of those two are known to exist.

 

But unattainable is not only a function of the price, it is also a function of the buyer's resources, and my comments were not intended to be any statement on any potential buyer's resources.

 

CAF is a tremendous resource and one in which I wish many many more people would participate.

 

Part of the purpose of this discussion is to speculate about a potential reason that certain collectors may not be participating.

 

As for you personally, you don't fall into that category. Your Captain Atom cover is truly "unbelievable" and I for one am grateful that you share it with others through CAF.

 

Best regards.

 

- A

[Artemaria]

I don't think familiarity breeds devaluation...it's more like availability breeds devaluation. If you see the same piece show up on eBay ten times without selling or if a piece keeps getting flipped from owner to owner to owner, it's going to devalue the piece because it appears like it's always available and that either no one wants to buy it or that no one cares enough to hang onto it. On the other hand, just displaying a piece in one's CAF gallery or otherwise letting people you know you have something is not necessarily going to devalue a piece if it retains an aura of unavailability.

 

This is an excellent point and picks up on the idea of whether the "shopping around" of a piece makes it less desireable.

 

What about the corollary, however, if a piece's having been never been seen before makes it more valuable? I'm thinking about that non-action X-men page that was off market for 20 yrs and then went for $8K. Did that auction go higher because no one has seen that page before?

 

Other non-action pages have been going for much, much less. I know that was a sentimental page and the seller really knew what to write in the auction, but I think the fact that no one had seen that page in two decades contributed somehow to the high auction result.

 

But then if that is true (and I really don't know) if someone has seen a page before, even if it is just on a dealer's site, would that eliminate that "pop" in the auction and thus contribute to some unquantifiable devaluation?

 

Besides, what was it that Hannibal Lecter said in "Silence of the Lambs"? Something about coveting things that we see every day?

 

If this were true, there would be no divorces.

[*paull*]

There are certainly some unbelievable pieces on CAF... a few that come to mind:

 

Keif Fromm's colored Jack Cole splash page

Jon Berk's Gus Ricca covers, LB Cole Mask #1 recreation, etc.

Stephen Fischler's X-men #49 cover by Steranko

and while I'm at it... Richard Donnelly's X-Men #51 cover by Steranko

[Sharkey]

There's many reason why collectors don't show their art, including but not limited to the following:

 

1. There absolutely are collectors who believe that having a piece out in public view will ultimately hurt its resale value as well as lessen the "buzz" around it when/if it goes on the block. And the thing is, if those people believe that, you're not going to talk them out of it. You might as well try to talk Osama out of believing in Allah. It's unfortunate that this is the case.

 

2. Some collectors believe that someday the families of the creator may try to lay claim to the art or that it might have been part of the infamous Marvel warehouse theft and so they don't want the general public to see that they own certain pieces.

 

3. Some collectors like to be private about what they own for fear of theft.

 

4. Some collectors don't want to get constant offers from interested parties.

 

5. Collectors do not post ALL the art that they own in order to have something "up their sleeve" for trade that might be a complete surprise and help seal a deal for a grail piece. I know this doesn't apply to your Ditko ASM cover argument (I believe there is a great scarcity of those covers which is part of the problem) but I know a lot of collectors who hold stuff back just in case they want to spring something out for a deal on a killer piece.

 

6. BUT, actually what it is, is that in order to see the really, really good stuff you have to be a member of "The Top-Secret Incredibly Awesome OA Owners Club" which is even more secretive than the freemasons. Once you've passed the tests, been voted in by a dozen current members, paid dues, had the TSIAOAOC password branded on your buttocks, and memorized the 59-part secret handshake, then you get to see the Ditko covers.

In fact, the Ditko covers are used as placemats for the annual summer BBQ.