B-Smooth

Member
  • Content Count

    6,069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About B-Smooth

  • Boards Title
    Pedigreed

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Gigilo
  • Hobbies
    Chicks.
  • Location
    Registered: 11/2/02

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Pogs! They'll make a comeback. You'll see!
  2. That thought crossed my mind actually. As comics were shrinking into the nothingness of the mid-late 90s post-Image, CCGs Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh were all the rage. Worldwide too. I'd have to imagine that's where more nostalgia lies 'per capita' from twenty years ago. How the spending power plays out today and tomorrow, well possibly a different matter. (It's not all about quantity, but also 'quality' of collectors!) It's not always enough that somebody loved something as a kid to want to spend a sizeable portion of their adult 'wealth' on getting it back again. Who's chasing and paying up for vintage hacky-sacks and Slinkies? Oh probably somebody (I'm scared to Google them actually!), but I hope my point is made too Legitimate sales of Pokemon cards. I keep track. This is in the last 2 years, and is not the OA. Pikachu illustrator: $40,000. Tropical battle 1999 winner: 15,000, pre-release raichu: $11,000. And then there are several error cards that sold in five figures. Just for knowledge. It's still going, like Magic, and has the same world wide following. It's just good to know things for future comparisons.
  3. We're comparing mtg to tintin? They have absolutely nothing in common. Other than, I'm guessing the fact that you don't know anything about either? (Which is fine of course but then what's the point of even bringing it up). Okay, so you know American superheroes, great. That isn't super relevant to anything either. Yeah they have a track record but these comparisons of a genre that started in the 1930s to a genre that started in the early 90s are tired and go nowhere. How about some more direct comparisons? As in 1993 and compared to 1993 and later? I've done enough digging now and seen enough auction results to conclude that (as a generalization) early mtg art is generally worth more than 1990s comic covers. Anything from alpha is worth five figures, and the better ones would go into five figures (how far is open for debate, but it would seem pretty far, and if the lotus card can trade for 50-60k I assure you the black lotus art would be into six figures without a single question. You can speculate on the rest but for that art for that card, guaranteed. Name me the 1993 of later comic cover that's worth six figures? Or, let's talk about how many people play magic versus read new American comics? I don't know the answer but I suspect it's either the same or more on the mtg side. So... forget comparisons to action 1 and asm 14 covers. Apples and kumquats. 93-00 mtg art... don't see any reason it shouldn't blow the doors off 93-00 comic art, generally speaking. And it's already doing so. That fact alone should give you pause when you think about future prospects. If I had numerous millions, that lotus would be hanging on my wall like Han in carbonite, in Jabba's palace. There you have it. Someone who would gladly pay 6 figures for it.
  4. Better! You other two need a snickers. I'm just enjoying the base set cards, OA. And I'm no player, either. I don't hang out with the geekers at the mall playing Friday night magic. Just someone who collected the cards for years. I have no horse in the race, as I've long ago sold my mint alpha set, 5 Lotuses, 8 of the moxes each, and the other power 9 cards in multiples. All in alpha/beta. As I type this, looking back, like most of the other collectibles I've had, I have the sorrow of having sold them. Who owns the moxes, by the way? I saw the pearl up for sale, and I think they wanted something like 100K? I'd take the ruby if I had the choice.
  5. Just playin'. I just need to re-read all that 8 times.
  6. Hi Bronty, I agree with your point about the "average person" that is a non-collector will not understand these prices at all. But that isn't really surprising because the "average person" that is a non-collector would probably not understand how prices operate for ANY art in the art market - including masterpieces from the Renaissance to more modern art like WArhol or pollock. As well as comic art and MTG. The average person doesn't know how price discovery works for any art. My point was directed more towards the transition of these pieces of art from niche collectibles into "art" that maintains its price appreciation over the long run, say 100 years from now. In order for somebody to have the confidence to pay millions of dollars for a piece of art it will be required to show that the franchise can withstand the true test of time and remain relevant and significant. I see comic characters as already having shown their resilience and popularity over almost 100 years in our culture while MTG art as still young and needing more time to make the transition. To be clear, this is not a slam in MTG potential. Nor do I want to wade into the debate into "what is art ". My point was merely to draw the distinction between comic oa and MTG art and where price points are in each cycle right now. I see what you're saying. The average person will see the historical significance of Spider-Man, Batman, etc, whereas Magic doesn't have that kind of following. A lot of it depends on Magic's staying power. Whether or not it branches out into something bigger. But it is big enough for a lot of these earlier pieces to bring six figures based on how many fans there are now, in the present day. Nobody can predict the future,( that I'm aware of) and in 10 years, or 100 years Magic could fade into obscurity, and the prices will drop permanently. Money aside, I'd rather have any alpha cards OA then any Picasso, Monet, Pollock, etc. To each their own.
  7. Toddler's and tiaras. Or Obomics, because it's all his fault for the madness. And why I burnt my toast this morning.
  8. Although I am not totally against the first movie. Although compared to Dredd, it is a kid's movie. He did for Dredd, what Val Kilmer did for Batman. Edit: he did for Dredd what Jackie Gleason did for batman.
  9. Dude, are you $&@#%£€ kidding me? I am envious on a scale that has yet to be created. One guy owns all of those? If I had to pick one of them to own, I'd take the time twister, only because it's power 9. For the art, I'd take the chaos orb. Great memories of them all.