The Collapse of the Original Comic Art Market

[tth2]

Sure, even the billionaires out there can't have the best-of-the-best Van Goghs and Picassos that are in the world's finest museums.

I've often wondered if there is a number that even museums couldn't turn down. After all, aren't most administered by trustees that have fiduciary responsibilities?

They are mostly non-profit or quasi-governmental agencies so their fiduciary responsibility doesn't include maximizing profits. Some important works are protected by contracts signed at the time of donation.

But still, $100 billion basically ensures virtually perpetual solvency and ability to continue their mission forever.

 

And where they're owned by the government, such as the Louvre, it'd be awfully tempting for the French government to just change the law to allow it (and also change the law to allow the funds to be used outside the museum).

 

Or how about a more extreme case, where $500 billion was offered to the Greek government to buy the Parthenon and move it to another country? That basically fixes Greece's financial problems and actually puts it into significant surplus, in one fell swoop.

[delekkerste]

Hey, money aside, I'd rather have a Kincade than a Picasso, but that's a conversation for another day!

 

:whatthe:

 

 

It seems like I've heard experienced collectors say over and over to new collectors that they should "start small" and get their sea legs before diving into the deep end of the pool. The above seems to be a counter-thesis to that tried-and-true advice.

 

Well, then there are collectors like Doc Dave who just advised the other day to "buy the best" and avoid the rest. I didn't say that people shouldn't ease into the hobby; but if you know from the outset that, given your budgetary constraints, that you will likely never progress beyond, say, the $200 or $350 mark, I think that's a sobering reality that one has to face. And, sure, some will be happy finding a niche there that works for them. There are certainly worthwhile pieces that one can collect even in that price range. But, if you're like many, who collect largely out of nostalgia, that may not really work for everyone.

 

I think implicit in a several of these comments made by various posters is that newer collectors are all younger collectors and so will only have nostalgia for (generally cheaper) '90s-up material. That's patently false - just witness all the people who have crossed over from comic books in recent years, many of whom are in their late 30s-early 50s. A lot of them stopped reading new books long ago. Still others will have discovered the classic material through TPBs, reprints, back issues, etc. Even back in my day (1980s), I developed an interest in and nostalgia for Ditko and Romita ASM (through Marvel Tales), Tomb of Dracula (through 25 cent box back issues), BWS Conan (through Conan Saga), EC horror (through the Gladstone reprints), etc. Later generations have had 100x the opportunity to delve into the classics given the Internet, digital comics, trades, movies adapting older storylines, etc.

 

Before I got into OA, I collected slabbed runs of my favorite comics, generally in 9.4/9.6 (this was before 9.8s became commonplace). I never spent more than $3K on a comic and most of my purchases were either 2 figures or low 3 figures. And, yet, even with that limited budget, I pretty much got everything I wanted - all my favorite Bronze and Copper Age keys, some full/partial runs, and a good number of cool Modern stuff with it. That amount of money in OA these days, though, would get you maybe 3 nice, but not great, pieces. Which is exactly why so many crossover collectors don't cross over for long. They sell their comics, buy a few cool vintage OA pieces and then find out that they've shot their wad and all they have are like 3-5 pieces of art to show for disposing of their entire comic collection. So, they end up selling the art and go back to vintage comics.

 

IMO, anyone who thinks this is not a problem for the hobby is deluding themselves. How is the hobby going to attract fresh blood if, say, $50K only gets you a handful of nice vintage pieces or else you have to go down either in quality or divert your interests to those things which you wouldn't even dream of collecting if not for budgetary constraints? Yes, I get having to compromise for a Ferrari 360 or even a cheap Mondial instead of a Ferrari F40. But, to your analogy, if you have to resort to getting an old Fiat, yes, it is often a bridge too far for many.

 

I mean, hey, if people are happy collecting whatever, then more power to them. I'm just saying that, for many people with mainstream tastes who are priced out of most of the stuff they really love most, I'm sure the hobby can be a daunting and frustrating place for them, and that it's a bit glib to say that that they should just get over it and collect all the cheap stuff out there instead and be happy about it.

 

 

Your most recent CAF is a Lee Bermejo Daredevil. Yours is terrific in every way, but would you consider it a compromise compared to this piece?

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1326068&GSub=173520

(Maybe not if you are more of a Daredevil vs. Batman fan, but I digress.)

 

Now, would a new collector wanting to scratch their Bermejo itch, not be able to start out with this $90 Hellblazer with an iconic close-up of the lead character?

http://www.comicartfans.com/ForSaleDetails.asp?ArtId=398036

 

No compromise at all - it's a nice piece, but it's not attached to any storyline that I've read or have a connection to. The DD cover's the perfect example for me in every way and the other is perfect for someone else. In any case, both are great Bermejo examples whereas the $90 Hellblazer example is simply not going to scratch the same itch.

[delekkerste]

In any case, my intention was not to harsh on whatever people choose to collect. It was more a response to the comment that "the problem is more that the sub-$200 isn't going to get the collector in the center of the circle-jerk for 15 minutes of back patting and is thus deemed not worth collecting" that people seemed to enthusiastically agree with, which I think is way off the mark. Yes, there is plenty of cool art that one can buy at the shallow end of the pool. But, I don't think people thumb their noses at this stuff as being not worth collecting because it doesn't elicit the backslaps and "attaboys" - it's more that the most popular mainstream art that most people grew up with and loves isn't the stuff you find in the sub-$200 or sub-$500 end of the market. And, that art is not necessarily easily substitutable with Fear Amour or DNAgents pages or $90 Lee Bermejo examples, even if those are cool in their own right.

[Lucky Baru]

But, I don't think people thumb their noses at this stuff as being not worth collecting because it doesn't elicit the backslaps and "attaboys" - it's more that the most popular mainstream art that most people grew up with and likes isn't the stuff you find in the sub-$200 or sub-$500 end of the market. And, that art is not necessarily easily substitutable with Fear Amour or DNAgents pages or $90 Lee Bermejo examples, even if those are cool in their own right.

 

I didn't grow-up reading any book penciled by Mike Deodato Jr., Humberto Ramos, and Phillip Tan but I'll buy pages that I like when I find them. I just dig their style. You can pick-up Phillip Tan pages for $50.00 at times on eBay. None of those guys are gonna get me an "attaboy" from most of the guys who post in here. It is kind of a generational thing. However, you can get them on other boards if you seek that type of reinforcement for the additions to your collection.

[Nexus]

I think implicit in a several of these comments made by various posters is that newer collectors are all younger collectors and so will only have nostalgia for (generally cheaper) '90s-up material. That's patently false - just witness all the people who have crossed over from comic books in recent years, many of whom are in their late 30s-early 50s.

 

It may be false from your experience, but I can tell you, as someone who is actively selling new art these days, that there IS a sizable population of young collectors who aren't buying for nostalgia AT ALL. They're buying new art, because that's what they're reading and that's what they know. Nostalgia isn't important because they didn't necessarily read comics as kids; for many, comics have been a relatively recent discovery in their lives. And see if you can wrap your head around this: A lot of them are women.

 

That's not the crowd you and I have hung out with in the past. But they're here.

 

Before I got into OA, I collected slabbed runs of my favorite comics, generally in 9.4/9.6 (this was before 9.8s became commonplace). I never spent more than $3K on a comic and most of my purchases were either 2 figures or low 3 figures. And, yet, even with that limited budget, I pretty much got everything I wanted - all my favorite Bronze and Copper Age keys, some full/partial runs, and a good number of cool Modern stuff with it. That amount of money in OA these days, though, would get you maybe 3 nice, but not great, pieces. Which is exactly why so many crossover collectors don't cross over for long. They sell their comics, buy a few cool vintage OA pieces and then find out that they've shot their wad and all they have are like 3-5 pieces of art to show for disposing of their entire comic collection. So, they end up selling the art and going back to vintage comics.

 

That's somewhat similar to my experience, too (putting together a nice slab collection quickly). Sounds like you felt the same way I did afterward as well: It was too easy, it wasn't a challenge at all. Collecting OA, OTOH, even if it's not high-end OA, does represent a greater challenge, and for some collectors, that makes OA more interesting. Even if they're not able to solely indulge in nostalgia.

 

And if we're talking high-dollar key GA/SA/BA 9.8's, well, you could definitely put together a great collection of OA for the same $$$. That Lebanese billionaire with the "Impossible Collection" of slabs? Damn impressive. But sorry, all things considered, he'd have more to show off if he had gotten OA instead. Which, as I understand, perhaps he's now figuring out.

 

IMO, anyone who thinks this is not a problem for the hobby is deluding themselves. How is the hobby going to attract fresh blood if, say, $50K only gets you a handful of nice vintage pieces or else you have to go down either in quality or divert your interests in those things which you wouldn't even dream of collecting if not for budgetary constraints? Yes, I get having to compromise for a Ferrari 360 or even a cheap Mondial instead of a Ferrari F40. But, to your analogy, if you have to resort to getting an old Fiat, yes, it is often a bridge too far for many.

 

It may be a problem for the vintage side of the hobby. Meanwhile, there's plenty of fresh blood to new OA. Maybe some will also expand their sights to vintage. We'll see. For now, I'm talking to new collectors every day, and it's pretty exciting. Comics fans who aren't investors, who simply love comics and art. I'm pleasantly surprised at how wide-reaching the podcast has been. Very gratifying.

[Nexus]

In any case, my intention was not to harsh on whatever people choose to collect.

 

So what if you were? I thought it was a shame you decided to delete your strongly-worded post last night, if that's how you felt. No one's going to agree 100% of the time. It was good reading!

 

It was more a response to the comment that "the problem is more that the sub-$200 isn't going to get the collector in the center of the circle-jerk for 15 minutes of back patting and is thus deemed not worth collecting" that people seemed to enthusiastically agree with, which I think is way off the mark. Yes, there is plenty of cool art that one can buy at the shallow end of the pool. But, I don't think people thumb their noses at this stuff as being not worth collecting because it doesn't elicit the backslaps and "attaboys" - it's more that the most popular mainstream art that most people grew up with and likes isn't the stuff you find in the sub-$200 or sub-$500 end of the market. And, that art is not necessarily easily substitutable with Fear Amour or DNAgents pages or $90 Lee Bermejo examples, even if those are cool in their own right.

 

Whatever makes us happy should be good enough. There's no one "right" way to collect. People collect for different reasons. Bottom line, there's room for every type of collector.

 

Like you, I collect a lot of vintage art, primarily out of nostalgia. My favorite pieces are weighted heavily towards older pieces. I'm grateful to own them. But if I didn't? I'd still collect modern art. The difference is I'm still an active reader. There are some great books that have come out in recent years. There have been amazingly talented artists who have come up in that same time. I'm really glad I haven't limited myself to only the comics I read as a kid. If I had, and I only just discovered OA, I'm not sure I would be participating (to your point). So yeah, maybe the vintage market is ultimately screwed. But I love seeing young people enter the scene. They may or may not have any impact on older art, but I'm becoming more confident that the OA hobby won't die with us.

 

 

[Nexus]

This is ridiculously timely, since the unofficial topic of my next podcast is "collecting on a budget". Prelims, sketches, strip art, new art, and generally exploring unbeaten paths...we cover a lot. New episode coming this week!

Benno?

 

Yes! Gave it away in the HA thread. Wondered who would pick that up;) Coming tomorrow!

[delekkerste]

It may be false from your experience, but I can tell you, as someone who is actively selling new art these days, that there IS a sizable population of young collectors who aren't buying for nostalgia AT ALL. They're buying new art, because that's what they're reading and that's what they know. Nostalgia isn't important because they didn't necessarily read comics as kids; for many, comics have been a relatively recent discovery in their lives. And see if you can wrap your head around this: A lot of them are women.

 

That's not the crowd you and I have hung out with in the past. But they're here.

 

It may be a problem for the vintage side of the hobby. Meanwhile, there's plenty of fresh blood to new OA. Maybe some will also expand their sights to vintage. We'll see. For now, I'm talking to new collectors every day, and it's pretty exciting. Comics fans who aren't investors, who simply love comics and art. I'm pleasantly surprised at how wide-reaching the podcast has been. Very gratifying.

 

Sure, I know there are a lot of people who read Scott Pilgrim and Saga and manga books and who have no little or no interest in the vintage stuff. And, for them, great, of course they're going to gravitate to the newer art and for them it's a great fit. That said, I'm focusing on people who grew up with mainstream vintage comics and who would gravitate naturally to that art as well if it were within their budgets. These guys and girls collecting Scott Pilgrim aren't likely to ever make that crossover and I'd wager that every single one of them combined probably spends less than what The Vacuum does in a year, so the overall impact on the market and the strength of the mainstream vintage OA hobby I think is probably very limited, IMO.

 

 

So what if you were? I thought it was a shame you decided to delete your strongly-worded post last night, if that's how you felt. No one's going to agree 100% of the time. It was good reading!

 

I think I pretty much covered all the same territory in subsequent posts, but, here it is again if you missed it:

 

If your idea of "dipping your toes" in the OA hobby is looking for one of those pages then it differs from my idea of "starting out."

 

I just look at the OA hobby as with other things in life. There are things you want and things you can afford. If those two lines bisect, great. If they don't, toof uckingbad. I'd love another KJones BATMAN page, not just any BATMAN page. Haven't found one in my budget. Life and collecting goes on.

 

My point, generally again, is I can't stand someone complaining they are priced out of the hobby. Either make it work for you or don't, but please don't "woe is me"

 

Sure, but presumably one dips a toe with the intention of eventually jumping in the pool. But, if everything in the pool is out of reach, then what? I know guys like you and Felix rep current artists whose work is often much more affordable than the prominent vintage artists. And, while there are vintage collectors who will buy Modern pieces every now and then (or are buying more Modern pieces because they've been priced out of the vintage stuff they love), if one did not either have a lot of vintage material already, and/or could not afford it if they were just starting out, I don't know that they'd be satisfied only collecting Modern stuff (or only the cheaper vintage stuff) in their price range.

 

I mean, sure, make it work or not, but if you can't get anything close to what you really got into comics for, is it really worth it to "make it work" just for the sake of being involved? Why not stick to the comics instead? Is it really worth it being a "Settler" like on those DirecTV commercials? "Hey, I grew up reading Byrne X-Men and Miller Daredevil, but now I'm collecting Fear Amour pages and I couldn't be happier!" - said no one, ever. It's one thing to settle for a Sandman page instead of a cover; it's quite another to settle for a page from Army@Love (a Vertigo title which I actually read) when you really wanted V for Vendetta.

 

I think all of us want to see this hobby flourish in the longer-term, and, for that to happen, we need a constant influx of new collectors. And, they can't all just be toe-dippers [or Scott Pilgrim fans ], which is why high prices and high barriers to entry for the better mainstream material is a legitimate gripe and concern, IMO.

[Bronty]

Clearly, the solution is for the vacuum to up his spending

[Nexus]

Sure, I know there are a lot of people who read Scott Pilgrim and Saga and manga books and who have no little or no interest in the vintage stuff. And, for them, great, of course they're going to gravitate to the newer art and for them it's a great fit. That said, I'm focusing on people who grew up with mainstream vintage comics and who would gravitate naturally to that art as well if it were within their budgets. These guys and girls collecting Scott Pilgrim aren't likely to ever make that crossover and I'd wager that every single one of them combined probably spends less than what The Vacuum does in a year, so the overall impact on the market and the strength of the mainstream vintage OA hobby I think is probably very limited, IMO.

 

The OA market isn't limited to high-end vintage art. Or cheaper modern art. If you're only talking about the vintage end, then I agree, future is cloudy. But there IS new blood entering the hobby via modern art, which is fantastic. As I've already stated, this may have no impact on the vintage side, but at least there continues to be new interest in some form of OA. As a fan of the art form, that makes me happy. For investors, that may mean nothing.

 

I think all of us want to see this hobby flourish in the longer-term, and, for that to happen, we need a constant influx of new collectors. And, they can't all just be toe-dippers [or Scott Pilgrim fans ], which is why high prices and high barriers to entry for the better mainstream material is a legitimate gripe and concern, IMO.

 

Surprisingly, not just limited to SCOTT PILGRIM! And as far as women collectors, I believe there's been a female buyer for just about every artist I rep. I've sold several Skottie Young pieces to new female customers just last week.

 

In terms of the dollars spent in this hobby, of course modern art just represents a tiny sliver. My interest is in cultivating new, young collectors, though, not seeking new money. But just as the modern art market may not affect the vintage art market, if the vintage art market were to crash, I have a feeling I'd still be selling modern art to young collectors, for whom the vintage art market is largely an abstract concept.

[zhamlau]

God this was so much easier when these pages were 5-10 bucks a pop....

[AKA Rick]

I think the "vintage" appeal is much like how you see young kids who are fans of AC/DC, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, etc. (i.e. bands who were in their mother/father's era) - - and sports card collectors who would like to have a Mickey Mantle as much as they would a Mike Trout. I think when the critical community as a general whole raises the prestige to near legendary or iconic status, the new onboarders tend to think they need to pay attention and maybe at times forcibly like "the masters" of years past.

 

So, as much as many fans are enamored with Greg Capullo, Michael Turner, J. Scott Campbell, etc. - - they're often times the same fans of Kirby, Miller, Ditko, Byrne, Perez, etc.

 

I think the true classic masters of OA will always be solid investments, but the mediocre to mid-level/range art may have more supply than demand. Although, I do / did notice once the masters become a bit out of price range, then other artists of that era are focused on. I saw Kirby and Ditko's prices enable artists like Infantino, Kane, Buscema, and Romita to increase through the years. I've seen Byrne, Miller and Perez of the 80's enable artists like Keith Pollard to command good dollar increases.

 

The problem with the medium of the comic book is being something that the kids of the pre-1990's gravitated towards is now not so popular among the youth, so you're seeing a lot of post-teenage collectors enter the hobby. The comic books are less cartoon "funny pages" and are more adult story telling (Walking Dead, etc.), and that's in part maybe the appeal as well. The cover price of comics is so high that kids can't afford to pick up a stack of books per week as in years past when they were under $1 each. The hobby has become a bit expensive to support. I'm not sure if the digital delivery of comics has become popular in the same way that digital downloads of music killed the CD industry and streaming videos is knocking out the need for DVDs.

 

[BCarter27]

Many great points above!

 

To narrow the discussion... We've laid out many avenues into collecting on a budget. However, if you are just entering in at the vintage art level, then Gene may be right.

 

I'm 38, and I virtually ignore pre-1980 art. I could care less about Kirby, Ditko, Romita, Infantino, pre-Superman Byrne. (Those pre-80s artists I do follow, such as The Studio guys, are more from my side-interest in fantasy and illustration art.)

 

This is much more from lack of personal connection, but price is the final nail in the coffin. Pricing on Silver and Bronze OA has reached its secondary market level.

 

And Copper OA has also solidified over the last 5 years. Case in point... try to find an Aparo Batman page now. Those wells of mediocre pages have run dry. My age group has their money and has circled back into the hobby to spend it. Look at a dealer's site on archive.org from just 5 short years ago and weep.

 

2000s are disappearing as we speak. YTLM hoarded away, as noted above. Bagley USM drying up. Epting Cap getting scarce. Given the collectors' age group, 2000s SHOULD still be plentiful, but methinks the movie craze has accelerated the curve.

 

So, I guess the question on the table is... Does the hypothetical new collector, aged 35-40, sell his slabs, walk into the OA room, and buy that FF Kirby just on the basis of a smart investment?

 

Does he walk down the aisle and buy six Maguire Justice League covers because he too BWAH-HA-HA'ed... and subsequently gets annoyed that he only has six items because these things are more expensive than he thought?

 

Or does he just walk back out the door?

 

I remember a recent thread where one person on CAF amassed a nice collection everyone was buzzing about and then threw his hands up and said, "Done! All out of slab money!"

 

For myself, I think OA is easier to divest when the time comes. So that's a big motivator for me. But to just buy a handful of vintage pieces at high prices that I had no connection to wouldn't be much fun for me.

 

I didn't grow-up reading any book penciled by Mike Deodato Jr., Humberto Ramos, and Phillip Tan but I'll buy pages that I like when I find them. I just dig their style.

 

Yup, but I also want a personal connection to the modern artists that I love enough to get an example of. I don't read all of their books though. So, what, I end up buying another splash of Batman because it looks nice? I will just end up with a bunch of generic splashes, pinups, or covers. (I know, I know. That's what most people want, including my wife. But I am a panel page guy.) I seem to be doing these kinds of purchases more and more lately, but I wonder if it is sustainable.

 

I think the "vintage" appeal is much like how you see young kids who are fans of AC/DC, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, etc. (i.e. bands who were in their mother/father's era) - - and sports card collectors who would like to have a Mickey Mantle as much as they would a Mike Trout. I think when the critical community as a general whole raises the prestige to near legendary or iconic status, the new onboarders tend to think they need to pay attention and maybe at times forcibly like "the masters" of years past.

 

So, as much as many fans are enamored with Greg Capullo, Michael Turner, J. Scott Campbell, etc. - - they're often times the same fans of Kirby, Miller, Ditko, Byrne, Perez, etc.

 

Not in my case, as I mentioned, but I would love to hear of others who agree. Gene mentioned above this happened with him. This may be the most important point of this discussion about vintage. Time and the market will tell.

 

And, if I am being honest, maybe it happened to me with early illustration art. It's not like I was alive back in 1920, but it must spark something.

 

When is the $45 million Norman Rockwell no longer a Baby Boomer nostalgia buy and transitions into being valued at that price because the art market says so?

 

I saw Kirby and Ditko's prices enable artists like Infantino, Kane, Buscema, and Romita to increase through the years. I've seen Byrne, Miller and Perez of the 80's enable artists like Keith Pollard to command good dollar increases.

 

Will there be a day when the bump to those secondary artists flattens as that age group leaves the hobby? The primary artists will retain their value because of general public name recognition, but the rest...?

 

Nostalgia isn't important because they didn't necessarily read comics as kids; for many, comics have been a relatively recent discovery in their lives. And see if you can wrap your head around this: A lot of them are women.

 

That's not the crowd you and I have hung out with in the past. But they're here.

 

I think it was writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick who had an interesting theory for this shift. IIRC, she likened it to the rise of digital availability, which removed the barrier of a woman or girl needing to walk into a female-unfriendly LCS.

 

Well, then there are collectors like Doc Dave who just advised the other day to "buy the best" and avoid the rest.

 

Yeah, this comment stuck with me too. But ultimately, I felt it was a loaded and subjective statement. What on earth is "the best"? The Walking Dead art that has a massive hit TV tie-in but isn't highly rendered? Aype Beven's highly-rendered masterpieces of labor? Or just anything above $5K and older than 30 years?

 

Doc Dave went with Frazetta. Technically, less of a comic artist and more of an illustrator. And he didn't buy the paintings. Frazetta was already well-established when Doc Dave was buying the lower-valued (but beautiful) drawings.

 

Who's the latest artist with that much general public recognition AND undeniable talent? Bruce Timm? Drew Struzan? Jim Lee? Bob Peak? Thomas Kincade? Jeff Koons? Rob Liefeld? Who's this "best" I should be betting on and buying their lower-priced works?

 

This thread started as click bait, but has turned into an interesting read. I hope new people find their way to it.

[Eric Seffinga]

Firstly...

Hey, money aside, I'd rather have a Kincade than a Picasso, but that's a conversation for another day!

 

Now THAT's a conversation!

 

Secondly, and more to the topic at hand, everyone's going to come at it differently. I have a sort of philosophy that everyone's world view is a matter of their own filtration. Your experiences, your exposure, education, background, upbringing, all of it. And it warps our world view and perception on things.

 

And it comes into play when how we approach everything, whether we realize it or not. So in my case, I've actually participated in just about every form of collection that circles comic art that there is. I've owned pieces by Adams and Kirby, by hot "newer" guys like Alex Ross (Kingdom Come), Dave McKean (Sandman covers), and I bought it when it WAS much more affordable.

 

I bought work based around single characters for a time (Deadman, hence the Adams) and Batman, and that included me buying work by artists I wasn't as interested in (Dan Jurgens?!?), because in my mindset at the time, I was fascinated by the collection.

 

A lot of those pieces as individual pieces weren't so interesting on their own, but when looked through as a whole it took on an entirely different significance, and one that couldn't be easily replicated any other way. To compare and contrast, and see differing approaches. It was it's own form of high priced art education. Seeing original art in general, for me, has always been a form of education, but seeing the same topic approached by hundreds of different creators proved fascinating. Most of it, not out of nostalgia.

 

I wasn't a Deadman fan as a kid for instance. I got sucked into the character via the back door through Kelley Jones and Mike Baron's Love After Death after High School. But collecting OA for that character led me into pathways I'd never have gone nostalgia-wise. With appearances in Action Comics, Batman Adventures, Moore era Swamp Thing, Gaiman's Books of Magic, Covers by Mignola and Kaluta. Etc and so on. There were artists there whose work I grew to love more, and work there whose artists I didn't care for at all, but it all felt cohesive. I had some trophy images to be sure. Kelvin now has the KJ Deadman promo poster that hung in my house for a lot of years. A real masterpiece. But like I said, Dan Jurgens?? (sorry Jurgens fans).

 

And then I started the Deadman theme collection. A series of commissioned pieces that included just about anyone that ever touched the character professionally (K. Jones of course, Neal Adams of course), and others that had as of the time never done so. Bruce Timm color drawing (via Albert of course), I contacted Jeff Jones out of the blue and asked if he'd be willing to do a drawing (it was maybe mid 90s at this point) and we talked over the phone. He decided he wanted to paint a portrait. I'd paid $100 for the drawing, and that's all Jeff wanted for it. Anyway, it kind of grew itself after a time. The names of artists who I had in that portfolio was such that others asked me to participate. For a few years I was informally "the Deadman guy". I had a website. I even held an award voting one year and let the Comicart-L folks cast votes for their favorite piece. I gave a physical award to Alex Horley at SDCC who was voted as the favorite piece that year. Sorry I'm rambling a bit.

 

But that collection was also not nostalgia based. For me it was a bit of an artistic social experiment. I adored seeing more and more artists tackle a similar subject, and the variety of work that tumbled out of it.

 

By that time I came to know many folks who did similar theme collections for any number of reasons. Many were nostalgia based in ways you would expect. Fans of the character or books. Joel Thingvall and his Wonder Woman collection. Innumerable numbers of people with Batman, Spiderman, Superman collections. In the earlier days even Burkey was sort of in that vein as his Romitaman habit was well known, and he wasn't yet a dealer of the stuff.

 

But there were other collectors with decidedly non-nostalgia based collections. A friend collected spacegirl themed work from a variety of artists. Not a specific character, but just an aesthetic. Other collections had devilgirls, or other pinup type interests. Then there were the decidedly more creepy folks. The naked Aunt Mays, the superheoines who were knocked out. The tied up. The Batman and Robin pedo pieces.The superheroines engaged in naughty behavior, etc. and so on. You talked to artists, you heard about collectors into some odd stuff.

 

None of these guys or gals are going to move the needle for the high dollar hobby today, but all of them together could have at the time. it was a smallish hobby then, and they (and I) were commissioning drawings at $100-200 a pop at a time when that money bought what many here would consider to be "real" art, and would have made some serious investments, were those people so inclined or even aware. It was easy to stick in a toe. Or several thousand dollars. And end up with a mass of work. Some of it amazing. Some of it arguably a waste of money. But they kept artists afloat fiscally.

 

And I had my nostalgic art too. Just because I had themes, it didn't make them exclusive interests. I chased art because it was important to me as a kid as well. I daresay the page I sold to Gene from U-Xmen was massively important to me from a nostalgic standpoint as it was/is to him. But I also realized it just didn't fit within my collection at the time, and I have something akin to OCD about how and where things are on display in our house. I suppose in a way I outgrew collecting for nostalgia, and it felt like the right time to pare down. I'm still nostalgic for the book and even that page, but I don't regret selling it.

 

At this point I don't think I have any of the art I mentioned above in my collection any longer. I outgrew the desire to have themes. I outgrew the desire to hang the nostalgia on the wall. I ended up settling on being interested in art that gives me a creative charge. That inspires me, prods me, or pushes me. Some of it is as new as last year. Some of it has been here since the earliest days of my collection starting in the 90s.

 

I think nostalgia is wonderful, and I get that it's what attracts so many to the hobby. It's just not the only reason, and it's not even the primary reason for some of us. Would the bottom drop out of the hobby if the big dollar nostalgia collectors all dropped over dead tomorrow. Without a doubt. But it wouldn't effect me a bit, other than possibly eating up other people's disposable income in a way that might put some ancillary pieces into a realm that I'd be tempted to buy them!

 

 

 

[vodou]

Eric...I could just quote your entire post. But that's called redundancy, a few particulars aside, you've described my journey to a tee.

 

Charge trumps nostalgia, these days. And has for at least ten years, probably more like fifteen.

 

There is a way back. It's called culling the many insignificant (this is where we are different, I believe you already did this) to acquire the few significant. This is separate from charge, or rather swapping many small jolts for several big bolts of lightning. It's been on my mind, but I'm still not there. Were I to do so, unlikely it would be big bolts of nostalgia I'd end up with. Realistically almost all of that material isn't even in color...and I'd like to say that doesn't matter...but it does.

[delekkerste]

With regard to nostalgia vs. non-nostalgia vs. "charge", let me just clarify a bit. Collecting out of nostalgia doesn't mean that you can only collect the things you read or coveted as a youth. Not at all. I still read new books - maybe not as many titles as, say, Felix, but enough to want to buy the Lee Bermejo Daredevil cover I just bought (published in 2006) or all the Walking Dead art I own, for example. Speaking of the Bermejo cover, which portrays a scene in Monte Carlo, I'm also quite nostalgic/fond of all the French comics I discovered on my first visit to the south of France after graduating from business school, and always keep an eye out for pieces from some of those titles, so one can be nostalgic for things discovered later in life as well with enough passage of time. And, of course, one can always start from nostalgia and then branch out to new areas - 15 years ago, I had never even heard of Krazy Kat; nowadays, I'm a devotee for life. But, it was nostalgia that brought me into the hobby and without which further exploration would likely not have happened.

 

In short, nostalgia is very/most often the gateway into our hobby (and the comics hobby). But, people can and do often branch out from there, of course. Though, I think that finding that "charge" is often trying to replicate the same "charge" one got from discovering something new or picking up something cool in the past, so even that is somewhat based in nostalgia. And, even those who collect for "artistic considerations" now undoubtedly started off on a more nostalgia-based path to the hobby, as it is the natural gateway for most. Which is why the lack of accessibility to the mainstream nostalgic favorites for new collectors (due to price) I feel is a real limiting factor in being able to attract fresh long-term adherents to the hobby.

[Garf]

@Eric, I have asked previously on these boards how people have grown as collectors and your journey was interesting to read. These kind of posts will make people reflect upon their own habits and when I look at what I am doing I am still left wondering if I could ever outgrow my nostalgia driven ways within the confines of this hobby. I certainly can't help browsing what is available outside of my wheelhouse whilst searching for whatever I am focusing on, but (and I am struggling for the right words to describe this) in most cases if there is no nostalgia it feels forced. Obviously it's entirely possible that could happen because I have sculpture and paintings in the house that have nothing to do with my childhood.

 

Your post also made me think again about what I want on my walls and how I want to display it. I often struggle with how I want it to all come together (but that's a thread on its own).

 

 

... anyway regarding the rest of this thread I had a browse back in time through this forum for similar conversations

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1143314&fpart=1

 

When I started looking at CAF (before I knew much about the hobby) I was left scratching my head as to why certain popular books didn't have more pages posted and in some cases were numbering less than more modern stuff. It still makes my head spin that there are people out there with 1000's of pages. When it comes to the vintage stuff it's not so scarce that you struggle to find any example of what you are searching for but I imagine the huge collections go a good way towards keeping prices up for now.

[JadeGiant]

Wow, this thread is exploding. Look like I have some catching up to do … or maybe I should just do a sell off before the market completely tanks? (that’s a joke – not gonna happen)

[vodou]

From earlier today:

In short, nostalgia is very/most often the gateway into our hobby (and the comics hobby). But, people can and do often branch out from there, of course. Though, I think that finding that "charge" is often trying to replicate the same "charge" one got from discovering something new or picking up something cool in the past, so even that is somewhat based in nostalgia. And, even those who collect for "artistic considerations" now undoubtedly started off on a more nostalgia-based path to the hobby, as it is the natural gateway for most. Which is why the lack of accessibility to the mainstream nostalgic favorites for new collectors (due to price) I feel is a real limiting factor in being able to attract fresh long-term adherents to the hobby.

From 04/03/2006:

There's no doubt that more people have been getting into the hobby (and I do agree that this Board has played a part), but it seems as though the buying has been more concentrated in the lower value pieces (say, $20-$2,000). Will these people eventually work their way up to mid-four and five-figure plus pieces? Because it's getting to the point where it takes a few grand even to pick up just about any Byrne X-Men page, for example. How many people coming into this hobby are willing to lay down that kind of cash and how much big-ticket buying is largely done as a result of selling or trading appreciated artwork acquired in the 1980s and 1990s? If you missed out on getting art on the cheap back then and are forced to pay cash for art at today's prices, it seems as though you have to be a surgeon, law firm partner, hedge fund manager, early Google employee, trustifarian or rock star to be able to afford anything really nice. I worry that the market for the better pieces has gotten so out of hand that more and more people are going to be priced out and deterred from entering the hobby.

[delekkerste]

People did work their way up, but, you'd be doing people a great disservice if you're implying that merely ca plus change, ca plus la meme chose. Yes, a lot of fresh money has come into the market, and a rising trend, cheap money and superhero movies have given people the confidence to stretch farther than they ever would have imagined 10 years ago. That said, we've also seen many ostensibly well-off members of some of the above-mentioned professions get priced out over the past decade, while many who relied on trading up with appreciated art also found themselves having to throttle back as well, as few have been able to keep up with spiraling prices.

 

10 years ago, nobody could have foreseen the asset price inflation globally that would ensue, as the measures that brought us to this point had never even been seen before. I, personally, misjudged the demographic shift and how strongly Gen X would take up the baton. That said, prices are much higher now and the avg. age of the hobby is older now, so the same conditions that propelled us higher over the past decade are no longer in place. And, as time goes on, ever-higher prices/barriers to entry to the hobby are going to become a bigger and bigger issue as Gen Xers pass their prime earning/spending years and as the less financially well-off Millennials have to pick up the baton and clear the market at ever-increasing prices. I think this is almost mathematically impossible, and younger collectors gravitating to Scott Pilgrim and such instead of vintage OA is certainly not going to help!

 

Those who think linearly and merely extrapolate the recent past indefinitely into the future will look at 2006 and 2016 and think, eh, no big deal, people have been saying the same thing about higher prices for the past decade and the market is as strong as ever. I think one has to look deeper at the underlying drivers of the market, though, and look out for potential tipping points. Prices can't keep ratcheting higher and outstripping both the current and next generation's ability to buy; at some point you discourage young collectors from entering the hobby and, in any case, if prices continue to outpace their buying power, it will be impossible to clear the market in the future at the prices that a lot of current collectors seem to think will prevail when it comes their time to sell.