$5000 To Spend On Comics..?4767

Pages:

Collector 14.75K	14.75K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown You're looking at the argument from the wrong angle. The CGC census isn't a scientific survey, any more than the US Census is. It's not meant to be. The CGC census is not a random sample, true; but it's not meant to be, nor is it appropriate to use it as if it is. The very fact that submitters (I don't refer to them as "collectors", because that would exclude a whole host of people who submit and are not, themselves, collectors) choose what to submit gives us great insight into what is considered "worth submitting", and not just with regards to monetary value. Understanding that, first and foremost, the vast majority of submitters do so for financial considerations, and coupling that with sales data gleaned over the years from sites like GPA, and you find very steady, predictable patterns as to what is submitted, and why, and what it all means. I don't know what your "1:1 correlation" comment is referring to. Could you please explain? If you are not quoting the CGC census numbers in an attempt to determine a statistical representation of what's out there, then I don't see your point in mentioning them. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I feel that my "1:1" reference is self-explanatory. Essentially the books that collectors define as "worth submitting" skew any statistical (mathematical) evaluation of what's out there floating around in the hobby. CGC census may have 10 copies of a book listed. 10 copies may have been submitted because it's a character's 1st appearance and there are 500,000 copies out there. More people own high grade copies. 10 copies of another book may have been submitted because only 50 exist, and there was a warehouse find. There isn't a 1:1 correlation between the two. Both have demand, but the reasons for submitting are entirely different.
	7 years ago	Post 76 • IP flag post

Collector 14.75K	14.75K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown What is "a lot of other collectors"...? What is that number, and how does it relate, say, to buyer behavior in the early 90's...? One thing is for sure: Miller DD numbers never even came close to X-Men numbers from the same time frame...and while DD numbers would plummet after Miller left in late 1982, X-Men would spend the next couple of years utterly dominating sales in the entire comics market. Besides, high print run 80's books, for HIGHER print run 60's books in potentially lower condition...? Many short-sighted people have made that bad decision for decades (including me!) The rule of thumb is: always trade newer for older, all other things being equal. For the record, I'm not disputing your claim that X-Men dominated the market in sales. I merely threw out conjecture that Miller Daredevil issues "might" have challenged X-Men's dominance for a few months. That's based upon 1st hand witness of what was going on at the time in comic shops. A "lot of collectors" would be a subjective evaluation based upon what the shop owners were ringing up at the time. I'd like to see the numbers for Daredevil #181 vs. what X-Men sold the same month. It's possible that newsstand sales gave X-Men a definite advantage. I still think it would be interesting to see exact numbers and not a yearly average. You are correct when you say this: "The rule of thumb is: always trade newer for older, all other things being equal." Obviously that is a guideline and it depends whether you are buying for short term gain or long term gain. I traded a short box of Valiant for an Amazing Fantasy #15. People ask me what the dealer was thinking. He had a $900 book sitting like a rock. People were only buying Valiant at the show and he was going to be leaving with no sales and travel expenses on top of that. I traded the short box of comics in the last hour of the show and he sold every one before the doors closed. I started buying 2 copies of comics before the word "speculation" ever floated around. I bought one to read and one to leave in minty condition. I wanted one that was touched as little as possible. Even when I bought 6 copies of Daredevil, I wanted 6 copies. I wasn't doing it to get rich. I just liked having multiples. I liked the odds of there being one that was better than any of the others.
	7 years ago	Post 77 • IP flag post

Collector

16.89K

DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by X51
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
You're looking at the argument from the wrong angle. The CGC census isn't a scientific survey, any more than the US Census is. It's not meant to be. The CGC census is not a random sample, true; but it's not meant to be, nor is it appropriate to use it as if it is.

The very fact that submitters (I don't refer to them as "collectors", because that would exclude a whole host of people who submit and are not, themselves, collectors) choose what to submit gives us great insight into what is considered "worth submitting", and not just with regards to monetary value.

Understanding that, first and foremost, the vast majority of submitters do so for financial considerations, and coupling that with sales data gleaned over the years from sites like GPA, and you find very steady, predictable patterns as to what is submitted, and why, and what it all means.

I don't know what your "1:1 correlation" comment is referring to. Could you please explain?

If you are not quoting the CGC census numbers in an attempt to determine a statistical representation of what's out there, then I don't see your point in mentioning them. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I think I've explained at pretty great length what the statistical use is, but I'll give it a shot again: the CGC census shows TENDENCIES. It gives us a general idea of what is out there, and the longer is exists, the more it is filled out, the better picture we have of what exists and in what general condition.

Because of the general laws of economics and human nature, we know that people will TEND TO submit those books which have, first and foremost, monetary value. Because, as in all things, condition determines value more than any other factor besides identity itself (that is, a 1.8 AF #15 isn't worth more than a 9.8 Man of Steel #17, but a 9.6 AF #15 is worth more than a 1.8 AF #15), we know that the census TENDS to be top heavy: the less value a raw book has, the less likely it is to be submitted in lower grades.

So, knowing that, we CAN make a statistical representation of "what's out there" under the parameters of the above. If you keep the above firmly in mind, many statistical representations can be made. You simply have to take your "random sample" from within the "non-random" sample.

Statistically, DD #168 is rarer in 9.8 than X-Men #141, though they came out the same month, from the same publisher. We know that because, despite 18 years, several thousands submissions of each, and the fact that both books are "worth submitting" in that grade, the DD #168 is represented on the census in that grade in far fewer numbers.

So, how do we interpret that data?

Several ways:

1. We have to understand the disparity in sales between the two titles.

2. We have to understand the mentality of the buyers of the time period.

3. We have to understand the market history of the two books.

4. We have to understand the production issues, if any, which helped/hindered the production quality of these books.

5. We have to understand the collectability of both books; the reason why people are attracted to them.

When we understand those things, we can form a valid interpretation for why the disparity in ultra high grade slabs exist...and it's not AT ALL "just because people like to submit high grade X-Men #141s more than DD #168s."

And then rinse, wash, and repeat for other issues as warranted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x51
I feel that my "1:1" reference is self-explanatory. Essentially the books that collectors define as "worth submitting" skew any statistical (mathematical) evaluation of what's out there floating around in the hobby.

CGC census may have 10 copies of a book listed.
10 copies may have been submitted because it's a characters 1st appearance and there are 500,000 copies out there. More people own high grade copies.
10 copies of another book may have been submitted because only 50 exist, and there was a warehouse find.

There isn't a 1:1 correlation between the two. Both have demand, but the reasons for submitting are entirely different.

I never made such a correlation, nor would I, which is probably why I didn't understand what you were referring to.

In comics, there's no such thing as that "1:1 correlation", because every single book is unique. However, that doesn't mean a reasonable correlation can't be made, such as two books that come out the same month, from the same publisher. It's reasonable to correlate such books.

7 years ago

Collector

16.89K

DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by X51
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
What is "a lot of other collectors"...? What is that number, and how does it relate, say, to buyer behavior in the early 90's...? One thing is for sure: Miller DD numbers never even came close to X-Men numbers from the same time frame...and while DD numbers would plummet after Miller left in late 1982, X-Men would spend the next couple of years utterly dominating sales in the entire comics market.

Besides, high print run 80's books, for HIGHER print run 60's books in potentially lower condition...? Many short-sighted people have made that bad decision for decades (including me!) The rule of thumb is: always trade newer for older, all other things being equal.

For the record, I'm not disputing your claim that X-Men dominated the market in sales. I merely threw out conjecture that Miller Daredevil issues "might" have challenged X-Men's dominance for a few months. That's based upon 1st hand witness of what was going on at the time in comic shops.

That's fine, but it's not my claim: it's an established fact. Anecdote, as you know, is not a substitute for data.

Again, the Statement of Ownership in DD #194 states that the average sales for DD #178-189 was 180k per copy; meanwhile, the SOO in X-Men #169, which came out the same month as DD #194, and covers X-Men #153-164 from the same time period (1982), was 313k copy, a nearly 75% higher sell-through rate.

And this was during, which you and I agree on, the height of Miller's popularity on his first run, and the highest sales the title enjoyed in that time period. Some of the DDs *might* have outsold some of the X-Men, but it's doubtful, as those numbers are averages, and it's not really even close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x51
A "lot of collectors" would be a subjective evaluation based upon what the shop owners were ringing up at the time. I'd like to see the numbers for Daredevil #181 vs. what X-Men sold the same month. It's possible that newsstand sales gave X-Men a definite advantage. I still think it would be interesting to see exact numbers and not a yearly average.

I agree completely. One of the most frustrating things about the entire industry is its obsessive secrecy about print runs and sales. It's infuriating at times, because no one will give you a straight answer, even about data that's 40-50 years old.

I'd love to see the numbers for DD #181, which came out the same month as X-Men #156, but I doubt it was really all that close. I suspect X-Men beat it handily...and neither title had the top selling comic of the year (that would go to Wolverine #1, if "reports" are to be believed.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by x51
You are correct when you say this: "The rule of thumb is: always trade newer for older, all other things being equal." Obviously that is a guideline and it depends whether you are buying for short term gain or long term gain. I traded a short box of Valiant for an Amazing Fantasy #15. People ask me what the dealer was thinking. He had a $900 book sitting like a rock. People were only buying Valiant at the show and he was going to be leaving with no sales and travel expenses on top of that. I traded the short box of comics in the last hour of the show and he sold every one before the doors closed.

Very true. The dealer didn't care about the "long term investment potential" of that AF #15; it was FOR SALE. He wanted to SELL IT. That's what a lot of people don't understand. It is only when you think in the long term that such trades start to make little sense...but if that dealer was smart, he turned that cash flow into even more cash flow, which generated more cash flow, which made him win, too.

The only "losers" in that scenario were the buyers of the Valiant books, but if it made them happy, then they won, too. That's how an economic transaction can be good for everyone, without the need for someone to "win" and someone to "lose."

Quote:

Originally Posted by x51
I started buying 2 copies of comics before the word "speculation" ever floated around. I bought one to read and one to leave in minty condition. I wanted one that was touched as little as possible. Even when I bought 6 copies of Daredevil, I wanted 6 copies. I wasn't doing it to get rich. I just liked having multiples. I liked the odds of there being one that was better than any of the others.

That's what another poster didn't grasp: that there's a difference between being a collector who likes to have multiple copies of the same issue, and a speculator who is just buying multiple copies to trade. Yes, I get the point they were attempting to make, but that wasn't my point, as I said earlier. I own maybe 100 copies of Batman #442. Why? Because it was one of the "hot books" when I first started collecting, and I missed out on it. I bought #437, 438, and 439 off the racks, but #440 hadn't come out yet, and by the time I went back to the stores a few months later, it was too late. It was "for sale" at Fact, Fiction, and Fantasy in Livermore, CA for the low, LOW price of only $5! Five times cover price!

No thanks.

So, I buy it not because it's worth anything, or that I ever hope it will be worth anything, but to say "up yours!" to all the gougers who thought it was cool to price one of highest printed books of 1989 at five times cover price two months after it came out.

I enjoy simply HAVING all those copies, just for the sake of having them. If they ever go up in price? Bonus!

7 years ago

Collector 14.75K	14.75K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown You're looking at the argument from the wrong angle. The CGC census isn't a scientific survey, any more than the US Census is. It's not meant to be. The CGC census is not a random sample, true; but it's not meant to be, nor is it appropriate to use it as if it is. The very fact that submitters (I don't refer to them as "collectors", because that would exclude a whole host of people who submit and are not, themselves, collectors) choose what to submit gives us great insight into what is considered "worth submitting", and not just with regards to monetary value. Understanding that, first and foremost, the vast majority of submitters do so for financial considerations, and coupling that with sales data gleaned over the years from sites like GPA, and you find very steady, predictable patterns as to what is submitted, and why, and what it all means. I don't know what your "1:1 correlation" comment is referring to. Could you please explain? If you are not quoting the CGC census numbers in an attempt to determine a statistical representation of what's out there, then I don't see your point in mentioning them. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I think I've explained at pretty great length what the statistical use is, but I'll give it a shot again: the CGC census shows TENDENCIES. It gives us a general idea of what is out there, and the longer is exists, the more it is filled out, the better picture we have of what exists and in what general condition. Because of the general laws of economics and human nature, we know that people will TEND TO submit those books which have, first and foremost, monetary value. Because, as in all things, condition determines value more than any other factor besides identity itself (that is, a 1.8 AF #15 isn't worth more than a 9.8 Man of Steel #17, but a 9.6 AF #15 is worth more than a 1.8 AF #15), we know that the census TENDS to be top heavy: the less value a raw book has, the less likely it is to be submitted in lower grades. So, knowing that, we CAN make a statistical representation of "what's out there" under the parameters of the above. If you keep the above firmly in mind, many statistical representations can be made. You simply have to take your "random sample" from within the "non-random" sample. Statistically, DD #168 is rarer in 9.8 than X-Men #141, though they came out the same month, from the same publisher. We know that because, despite 18 years, several thousands submissions of each, and the fact that both books are "worth submitting" in that grade, the DD #168 is represented on the census in that grade in far fewer numbers. So, how do we interpret that data? Several ways: 1. We have to understand the disparity in sales between the two titles. 2. We have to understand the mentality of the buyers of the time period. 3. We have to understand the market history of the two books. 4. We have to understand the production issues, if any, which helped/hindered the production quality of these books. 5. We have to understand the collectability of both books; the reason why people are attracted to them. When we understand those things, we can form a valid interpretation for why the disparity in ultra high grade slabs exist...and it's not AT ALL "just because people like to submit high grade X-Men #141s more than DD #168s." And then rinse, wash, and repeat for other issues as warranted. Quote: Originally Posted by x51 I feel that my "1:1" reference is self-explanatory. Essentially the books that collectors define as "worth submitting" skew any statistical (mathematical) evaluation of what's out there floating around in the hobby. CGC census may have 10 copies of a book listed. 10 copies may have been submitted because it's a characters 1st appearance and there are 500,000 copies out there. More people own high grade copies. 10 copies of another book may have been submitted because only 50 exist, and there was a warehouse find. There isn't a 1:1 correlation between the two. Both have demand, but the reasons for submitting are entirely different. I never made such a correlation, nor would I, which is probably why I didn't understand what you were referring to. In comics, there's no such thing as that "1:1 correlation", because every single book is unique. However, that doesn't mean a reasonable correlation can't be made, such as two books that come out the same month, from the same publisher. It's reasonable to correlate such books. I think you should use the word "observation" instead of "statistics". You are describing a "gut feeling" based on numbers vs. a science that uses high level mathematics. Your response made me laugh.
	7 years ago	Post 80 • IP flag post

I had no way of knowing that 9.8 graded copies signed by Adam Hughes weren't what you were looking for. 29.33K	29.33K drchaos private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by conditionfreak "Speaking of "collectors"...I don't think you're acting as a collector when you're buying 6 copies of a book to trade for other things...you're acting as a speculator. But that's just a very minor quibble about terms. Nothing wrong with either, but you're not collecting 6 copies of DD #180 (or whatever) to own 6 copies...you're hoping to trade them for the stuff you DO collect." Wrong, and kind of right. But mostly wrong. Tomato Tomato
	7 years ago	Post 81 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 11.29K	11.29K conditionfreak private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Ha Ha "No thanks" to a "hot" back issue comic that is priced at 5 times cover price (a one dollar book that is now a five dollar book)? Really? I admire your knowledge (or perhaps just "look it up skills). I really do. And your ability to type 140 wpm is impressive also. But PLEASE. Be realistic in regards to the practicalities of this collecting hobby. (Note: IMO, there IS a difference between a reader and a collector)
	7 years ago	Post 82 • IP flag post

Collector 14.75K	14.75K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by drchaos Quote: Originally Posted by conditionfreak "Speaking of "collectors"...I don't think you're acting as a collector when you're buying 6 copies of a book to trade for other things...you're acting as a speculator. But that's just a very minor quibble about terms. Nothing wrong with either, but you're not collecting 6 copies of DD #180 (or whatever) to own 6 copies...you're hoping to trade them for the stuff you DO collect." Wrong, and kind of right. But mostly wrong. Tomato Tomato I've noticed that some of the complaints you get are tied to semantics, not one person being right or wrong.
	7 years ago	Post 83 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 I think you should use the word "observation" instead of "statistics". You are describing a "gut feeling" based on numbers vs. a science that uses high level mathematics. Your response made me laugh. Well, hey, your comment about DD sales coming anywhere near X-Men sales during that time period made me chuckle too, so I'm glad we can amuse each other. Even observationally, anecdotally, it should have been clear that that wasn't near the case. I'm not describing a "gut feeling" any more than exit polls are "gut feelings." They are statistics: a fact or piece of data from a study of a large quantity of numerical data. That's what the CGC census is. Those numbers are NUMBERS, not "gut feelings" or "guesses" or "estimates" or "averages." They represent a specific piece of information. I'll continue to use the word "statistics" because those numbers are precisely that: statistics. Just because the data involved is not "random" doesn't mean those numbers aren't statistics. I think you're confusing "sample" with "statistics." There is such a thing as nonprobability sampling. I don't think you understand that, and so have resorted to diminishing my comments as mere "observation" based on "gut feeling", as if those numbers aren't real and don't exist. Obviously, that isn't the case. But I do have a question for you: what are, in your understanding, "high level mathematics"...? I'm no mathematician, but I DID take statistics in high school, and it didn't take Descartes to figure out how to do a statistical analysis.
	7 years ago	Post 84 • IP flag post

Collector 1.98K	1.98K comic_book_man private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	How do you guys find the time to respond in such depth? I think the most I've spent on a post is 5 minutes(pretty lengthy) but to continually do that over and over and to make my lengthy posts seem like peanuts to these posts...I need to rethink my forum life because I'm obviously doing it wrong. ...either someone is developing carpal tunnel or someone needs to go outside! lol #endtheforumpyramids
	7 years ago	Post 85 • IP flag post

Collector 1.28K	1.28K thelastbard private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	I guess it wasn't in this thread, but it related to this conversation from days ago... This is why we don't invest in comics purely because a book has a film based on it, or, at least, not for a LONG TERM investment. We've all talked about things like Walking Dead 1, New Mutants 87, 98, etc... Are these good LONG TERM investments? My answer is that, currently, no, they are not. If you bought them before the rights were sold, maybe. If you are buying them in the middle of the pop culture insanity, no... Recently, I was at one of the local shops I go into occasionally (not my main local) and the owner, who considers that he has been in the business "a long time"... this would be ten years or less by my reckoning... and one of his customers are discussing the fact that, he boasts, the customer has NINE copies of WD number 1. He says they are worth around $15k each. I looked at him skeptically, but also said, "sell them as quickly as possible. He looked at me like an idiot and said something along the lines that he was planning to retire off of those. I went on to explain that the books were artificially inflated due to the pop culture phenomenon and we would not know the "true" value of them until the popularity of the show died down. What happens if the show ends, the comic ends, etc? The owner and the customer both argued about print runs, that the show wouldn't cancel, or would just be rebooted, etc, comparing it to Amazing Fantasy 15, demand continuing to grow, etc... Again, I expressed that there was not enough data to compare the two - a book from the 1960's to a book from less than fifteen years ago. Sure, maybe eventually it would climb to where it "is" now (again, not believing the value they stated), but there WOULD be a catastrophic drop at some point. There are countless examples of Image and other indie books climbing up in values (not THAT high, but climbing), then being in dollar bins months later.... Needless to say, I left annoyed. Today, I decided to look... CGC 9.8's of Walking Dead issue 1 at around $3000 Sold listings. I don't care what people WANT to sell them for, what are they selling for? $3000. That's a lot different than $15k. One 9.9 sold for considerably more, but that doesn't count. Anyway, same applies to Cable and Deadpool... Can we apply a long term investment strategy based on pop culture interest? No... We need to look to books that people had interest in before there were movies. Even if there were movies, they came, they went, and there's still interest, and the demand has already adjusted. Stepping off of soapbox now!
	7 years ago	Post 86 • IP flag post

Collector 14.75K	14.75K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	I think Walking Dead still has plenty of room to fall. I agree with your advice to sell. Once you get past it's reputation for being a good read, there aren't any visual elements that define the book or the characters for new generations. I feel that it's at the peak of it's success and most of that is fueled by speculator frenzy. A bubble.
	7 years ago	Post 87 • IP flag post

Collector 1.28K	1.28K thelastbard private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 I think Walking Dead still has plenty of room to fall. I agree with your advice to sell. Once you get past it's reputation for being a good read, there aren't any visual elements that define the book or the characters for new generations. I feel that it's at the peak of it's success and most of that is fueled by speculator frenzy. A bubble. It was heading in a nice upward direction BEFORE the show was announced. I think if the show never happened, and it maintained popularity, it would be 3-4 times higher than Saga #1 is now, simply because of age and print run. So, $1500 tops (and I think that's a little high - unprecedented for an Image book, non-exclusive). Put the show into consideration AFTER it is cancelled, and maybe give it a little bump. Again... I think that's still generous. I deal with numbers all day, every day... Raw data... So, I may approach my logic a little different than others might, but the end result is the same - no longevity unless you're planning for your great-great-great-great grandchildren to cash in on your 9.8 graded books.
	7 years ago	Post 88 • IP flag post

Collector 14.75K	14.75K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Quote: Originally Posted by thelastbard Quote: Originally Posted by X51 I think Walking Dead still has plenty of room to fall. I agree with your advice to sell. Once you get past it's reputation for being a good read, there aren't any visual elements that define the book or the characters for new generations. I feel that it's at the peak of it's success and most of that is fueled by speculator frenzy. A bubble. It was heading in a nice upward direction BEFORE the show was announced. I think if the show never happened, and it maintained popularity, it would be 3-4 times higher than Saga #1 is now, simply because of age and print run. So, $1500 tops (and I think that's a little high - unprecedented for an Image book, non-exclusive). Put the show into consideration AFTER it is cancelled, and maybe give it a little bump. Again... I think that's still generous. I deal with numbers all day, every day... Raw data... So, I may approach my logic a little different than others might, but the end result is the same - no longevity unless you're planning for your great-great-great-great grandchildren to cash in on your 9.8 graded books. Most key comics do spike BEFORE the release of a movie. The thought among fans and retailers that a comic will go up in value drives a speculator frenzy and people are more willing to part with money if they don't have one. Walking Dead is noteworthy because the demand stayed steady as the general public learned that the comics existed. The closest thing you can compare Walking Dead to is X-Files. It was a popular subject matter with no iconic images in the comics defining what it's about. The timeline of events is different since X-Files #1 came out after the TV show was on TV. Despite that, X-Files was hugely popular until the TV show went off the air. Topps milked it for sales which undermined back issue collectibility, but money was being spent. After the show went off the air, back issue sales tanked with later issues being in dollar boxes. I feel that Walking Dead will do the same when it goes off the air and people are tired of it. Once it's TV run is over, it'll be out of sight and out of mind for the larger population. Comic shops will be resistant to decrease prices on the items they've invested a lot of cash in, so the books will just quit selling. The shops will be more likely to trade the books away for things that are selling, to minimize their losses.
	7 years ago	Post 89 • IP flag post

I don't believe this....and I know you don't care that I don't believe this. 75.88K	75.88K GAC private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by KingNampa Put it in stocks or IRA for retirement. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! that picture is hilarious!!!!!
	7 years ago	Post 90 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by thelastbard I guess it wasn't in this thread, but it related to this conversation from days ago... This is why we don't invest in comics purely because a book has a film based on it, or, at least, not for a LONG TERM investment. We've all talked about things like Walking Dead 1, New Mutants 87, 98, etc... Are these good LONG TERM investments? My answer is that, currently, no, they are not. If you bought them before the rights were sold, maybe. If you are buying them in the middle of the pop culture insanity, no... Recently, I was at one of the local shops I go into occasionally (not my main local) and the owner, who considers that he has been in the business "a long time"... this would be ten years or less by my reckoning... and one of his customers are discussing the fact that, he boasts, the customer has NINE copies of WD number 1. He says they are worth around $15k each. I looked at him skeptically, but also said, "sell them as quickly as possible. He looked at me like an idiot and said something along the lines that he was planning to retire off of those. I went on to explain that the books were artificially inflated due to the pop culture phenomenon and we would not know the "true" value of them until the popularity of the show died down. What happens if the show ends, the comic ends, etc? The owner and the customer both argued about print runs, that the show wouldn't cancel, or would just be rebooted, etc, comparing it to Amazing Fantasy 15, demand continuing to grow, etc... Again, I expressed that there was not enough data to compare the two - a book from the 1960's to a book from less than fifteen years ago. Sure, maybe eventually it would climb to where it "is" now (again, not believing the value they stated), but there WOULD be a catastrophic drop at some point. There are countless examples of Image and other indie books climbing up in values (not THAT high, but climbing), then being in dollar bins months later.... Needless to say, I left annoyed. Today, I decided to look... CGC 9.8's of Walking Dead issue 1 at around $3000 Sold listings. I don't care what people WANT to sell them for, what are they selling for? $3000. That's a lot different than $15k. One 9.9 sold for considerably more, but that doesn't count. Anyway, same applies to Cable and Deadpool... Can we apply a long term investment strategy based on pop culture interest? No... We need to look to books that people had interest in before there were movies. Even if there were movies, they came, they went, and there's still interest, and the demand has already adjusted. Stepping off of soapbox now! This is the same mentality you saw in the 90's. I remember being at Halley's Comics in Pleasanton, CA in the spring or summer of 1990...all of 17-18 years old...and the clerk working there was hyping Death in the Family (Batman #426-429.) He was telling some customer how it had "only gone up" and was a "great investment." I'd been steadily watching this particular set for a while, and knew it was on the the downward slope. In fact, outside of ultra high grade copies, this set has never even come close to reaching the heights it achieved in the summer of 1989. The clerk either 1. was lying to make a sale, or 2. was clueless. Either way, he had no business telling anyone that. I...being me, and a naive 17 or 18 years old, said "what? That set's gone down in price the last couple of Updates." The clerk, instead of saying "it has? Well, I'll be, thanks for setting me straight!" said quite sternly "why don't you mind your own business??" That was, I think, my very first experience dealing with the Big Lie, someone lying about something to make money. In any event, a fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place. I have zero problem taking the money of fools; I won't be the greater one. But these are signs of the impending collapse; it's always just a matter of time. Don't be annoyed by these fools, as annoying as it is...be grateful that you are not one of them. All the reasons for why WD #1 is a terrible investment you gave are valid. You can't reason with these people; only the school of hard knocks will teach them anything. And when he can't get $500 for his Walking Dead #1s, how's he going to pay for his retirement...? $15,000....lol.... Nothing in the last 100-150 years has come close to matching the S&P500 over a long-ish period of time...20+ years or so. Nothing. That's because capitalism is a wonderful system, with millions of people working every day towards their own best interests, each contributing their part, big or small, to the strength of the economy as a whole, and the stock market represents that strength. Yes, comics have enjoyed a glorious run...no doubt. But so did stamps. So did coins. So did baseball cards. So did Hummel figurines. So did tulips. And if you had walked around San Diego Comicon in 1985 and said that in 25 years, a copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 would sell for $1.1 million, everyone would have laughed at you. And by 2040, they may be laughing at that price again.
	7 years ago	Post 91 • IP flag post

626352 91 16

« Forum Home

Pages:

1 2 3 4

This topic is archived. Start new topic?