jleto

On 12/21/2017 at 4:19 PM, Panelfan1 said:

thanks for the link Felix! cool article

it was a bit conflicting as in  - buy what you love as long as what you love is loved by other people too. 

the other interesting argument was to buy stuff that has nostalgia for current batch of collectors -when they reach the magic age.

while this is fine advice for modern stuff - I would say that  it misses the point over time.   He states that most art that is over 50 years old won't appreciate more -but I totally disagree. that is if comic art continues to appreciate at all - that stuff will also go up.   collectors are not casual buyers.  great art from the past will be appreciated over time just as fine art from long dead artists has a chance to go up.  Liquidity may be affected though

one point he made was   "Do you want a great page from a top tier Marvel artist from before 2000? It’s too late to get a deal. You can’t go back to buy that Adam Kubert or Mark Bagley art when it hit the market, much less McFarlane or Frank Miller or Kirby. ".  if you use that argument, I would ask - was it a good idea to buy Miller or Mcfalane in 2000 vs 2017.  even though it was way more than Kubert or Bagely at that time?

 

5

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.

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

A page purchased for $100 in 2000 only needs to be sold for $250 today to beat the Dow Jones for that time period. That is admittedly a huge profit for the average page, but this article is about improving your average.

Um. No. It's not. Anything I bought for $100 in 2000...lol...add at least a zero on the end. Tells me he wasn't really doing comic art in 2000.

 

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:

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

1. Like any serial entrepreneur I failed many times (the entire nineties) before I got it right (oughts forward). The key to lasting (keeping a roof over one's head) long enough to get it right was, aside from believing in myself when no one else did, stepping light enough to recognize a loser for what it was before committing heavily. Failing at losers so much meant I knew a winner when I ran into it and still had the means to go in heavy when the gettin' was good, really good.

1

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.

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

Very important, not sure if Leto gets that, can't pay rent turning $1 into $30 once, even though it's hella ROI!!) Had I just held...300k today, maybe $500k? Instead of crying about that though, watching in dismay as the market kept running all the way up, I was encouraged to go deeper than ever and developed a keen sense for value (separate from price). Not only did that 70k go back in but just about everything else I could pull together too and then I put in all the OT at work and everything else I could throw at making more money any way I could to feed the beast. As long as the value was there, I was there to whatever extent my finances would allow (yes I did impoverish myself in many other ways that most take for granted, referencing Felix on his podcast). 

 

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.

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

3. Now knowing both success and having developed a pretty keen eye for value, I also knew when it was time to stop buying comic art. The value was gone (and it still is). The really big gains were there for those that got in relatively early (say up to 2005 or so) and not so much since, but you did have to hold. Anyway, being "out" I shifted my attention and resources elsewhere, where value still exists. Now, I buy comic art occasionally for nostalgia and do bump into a deal here or there (or just good art for fair money, that's how Felix's folks got some of my money this year) but am no longer actively, in any way, digging deep and hoarding up. That decade is long, long gone. And it wouldn't matter if I made $10m a year...the value still wouldn't be there, plain and simple.

3

Thanks again for reading and adding to the conversation.

On 12/21/2017 at 5:43 PM, vodou said:

Maybe that's* what passes for "journalism" these days but UGH it sure wouldn't have when I was in college in my Intro course.

This guy has been around forever...but he lacks serious perspective imo...which tells me he was never a serious player, at art at least.

*A sandwich of personal anecdotes and bold proclamations (often at odds with one another) without any supporting arguments of substance.

 

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.