• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jleto

  • Boards Title
    Just got here

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you for reading. I agree that it was conflicting. I tried to communicate that, but I could have done better. I am not a professional writer, just a passionate fan. I may not have supported my argument well for the pre-1960 argument. I know the argument is to be made, but I decided that the article was long enough without spending too many more words on it. Maybe I needed to expand it. With your point about buying Miller or McFarlane in 2017, I agree that my thesis is poorly stated. I could have made clearer that all of those were a better deal in 2000 than today, with Kubert and Bagley art being lower in price than Miller and McFarlane. I picked those four artists because their first big titles were gently spread out over the 1980s and 90s, with Miller and McFarlane being bigger names and Kubert and Bagley being more journeymen. I was trying to identify that the next round of talent whether superstars or journeymen is working right now.
  2. I was talking about the average, i.e. if you could buy an average page from an average book in 2000. I stand by the statement, but admittedly don't want to run the numbers. For basic context, the top-selling book in July 2000 was Spawn #100. If you bought every page from this issue at the time and sold them today, I think it would provide a modest yearly return, which was what I said. Also, you seem to agree with me, because later in this post, you said: Which supports my opinion that learning through losing is critical. As evidenced by your anecdote that you lost money for most of the 90s then bought wiser at the turn of the century. Also, I'm not sure what paying the rent has to do with your approach when it sounds like you had a full time job (plus overtime) to invest in comic art. I was trying to point out the very difference between buying and selling art for a profession and buying and selling art as an "investment." Those who have to pay rent with the money are professionals. Those who invest and reinvest and take a profit from their art purchases are investors. It's the insularity and size of the comic art market that means that only a few people can be the former. Here is the last point we seem to agree on, but you say it like a disagreement, maybe because my point was unclear. Once the price has increased through sales and resales, the value decreases because a profit was taken out with each transaction. You and I don't need to pay rent from comic art sales, but Heritage and Moy and eBay, et al. definitely do. As the market price stabilizes, the opportunity for arbitrage (therefore profit) disappears. Which is why I listed some ways I believe a younger collector than you or I can buy for value while enjoying their hobby. Part of the reason I name-checked and noted Felix and his artists often in the article is that it is the closest you can get to buying directly from these artists when their newest art is released at a fair market price, with only one level of profit extracted. This is a much better time to buy if you love these artists than if the art gets resold later. Thanks again for reading and adding to the conversation.
  3. Thanks for reading the article. You're absolutely right on both these points. It was not intended to be journalism. I'm not sure how I gave the impression that it was. "Personal anecdotes and bold proclamations" is true. If it helps, I added an "opinion" tag to the article. Also, I specifically said in the post that I was a "small time comics retailer and no-time art buyer," so I'd hoped it was clear that I was never a serious player at art. I was privileged enough to observe some of the serious retail players both through artists and collectors who were serious players. I wrote this because I love thinking and talking about comic art, both as a collector and from a retail perspective. It's the reason I enjoy the podcast so deeply. I also read your follow-up post. Your second point seems to specifically support many of the statements I made on behalf of the investing-is-useful-if-you're-smart-about-it side of the argument, including the fact that a lot of value has disappeared from art peaking in price due to the buyer's earning potential lining up with their nostalgia-driven passions. Thanks for expanding the conversation.