Near six figure MTG art sales 0

[dem1138]

Its funny to have not ever played Magic, but appreciate the significance of it, and see these pieces with no other context, and not understand why anyone would pay more than a dollar for any of these.

And then I realize that this is exactly how other people outside of the hobby see all comic book original art, which is a funny (and fun) perspective to see.

[Bronty]

^ exactly.

 

And dungeon yeah timetwister would be my choice and yeah one guy has them all

[Peter G]

^ exactly.

 

And dungeon yeah timetwister would be my choice and yeah one guy has them all

 

There is "some" truth to that but in fairness I think it depends on the piece of original comic art and it's nicheness. Yeah, some people would scratch their head for prices paid in a "New Mutants" cover as an example but maybe "get" the significance of a 30s "Batman" cover or 60s "Spider-Man" cover. I think us comic art enthusiasts appreciate all of this stuff but the pieces that transcend just the enthusiasts has the potential for unbelievable price appreciation. And once you get into the speculation game, prices move up in a hierarchy of investables that will rest every 20 years as people get better perspective on significance.

 

I am not saying the demand for "black lotus" at 100k isn't there but where a piece of MTG goes in the longer run is the truth test of MTG and it's longevity.

[Bronty]

Peter,

 

The average person wouldn't even understand why a 9.8 goes for more than a vg; why would they get, without explanations, why say the cover to ASM 14 would be enormous money if it existed.

 

The average person who is a non collector is going to think any amount that is outside of what their own household budget could afford - for most people, a few thousand - would be crazy, and that goes for whatever collectible we are discussing.

 

These people wouldn't understand why a panel goes for less than a cover or why Lassie #1 (I remember that show!) in 9.6 is worth less than avengers 1 in 9.6 (didn't they just come out last year in that movie?) so they sure as heck wouldn't understand the values we attach to them

[B-Smooth]

^ exactly.

 

And dungeon yeah timetwister would be my choice and yeah one guy has them all

Where does he live?

[Peter G]

Peter,

 

The average person wouldn't even understand why a 9.8 goes for more than a vg; why would they get, without explanations, why say the cover to ASM 14 would be enormous money if it existed.

 

The average person who is a non collector is going to think any amount that is outside of what their own household budget could afford - for most people, a few thousand - would be crazy, and that goes for whatever collectible we are discussing.

 

These people wouldn't understand why a panel goes for less than a cover or why Lassie #1 (I remember that show!) in 9.6 is worth less than avengers 1 in 9.6 (didn't they just come out last year in that movie?) so they sure as heck wouldn't understand the values we attach to them

 

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.

[Bronty]

Sure, of course comics and comic oa have a longer history and for that reason absolutely should be worth more.

 

I didn't realize you were looking at a 100 yr window, for my money 5,10,20 years is hard enough to guess; beyond that is a crapshoot. In that kind of timeframe the art prices will have more to do with the relative strength of new comics, versus the strength of the game, at that time

[B-Smooth]

Peter,

 

The average person wouldn't even understand why a 9.8 goes for more than a vg; why would they get, without explanations, why say the cover to ASM 14 would be enormous money if it existed.

 

The average person who is a non collector is going to think any amount that is outside of what their own household budget could afford - for most people, a few thousand - would be crazy, and that goes for whatever collectible we are discussing.

 

These people wouldn't understand why a panel goes for less than a cover or why Lassie #1 (I remember that show!) in 9.6 is worth less than avengers 1 in 9.6 (didn't they just come out last year in that movie?) so they sure as heck wouldn't understand the values we attach to them

 

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.

[Peter G]

Peter,

 

The average person wouldn't even understand why a 9.8 goes for more than a vg; why would they get, without explanations, why say the cover to ASM 14 would be enormous money if it existed.

 

The average person who is a non collector is going to think any amount that is outside of what their own household budget could afford - for most people, a few thousand - would be crazy, and that goes for whatever collectible we are discussing.

 

These people wouldn't understand why a panel goes for less than a cover or why Lassie #1 (I remember that show!) in 9.6 is worth less than avengers 1 in 9.6 (didn't they just come out last year in that movie?) so they sure as heck wouldn't understand the values we attach to them

 

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.

 

Exactly. My attitude is buy what you like but be prepared to take a loss and have the art on your walls forever. I too would rather own a piece of art that has meaning to me then just buy art because somebody tells me that its "good". I think that is why comic OA has such amazing potential because with the movies and globalization, there are many people that like the comic genre.

 

And to Bronty's point - it's nearly impossible to predict anything so far into the future. Will Spider-Man remain popular ? New mutants ? MTG ? Who really knows anything ?

[vodou]

Peter,

 

The average person wouldn't even understand why a 9.8 goes for more than a vg; why would they get, without explanations, why say the cover to ASM 14 would be enormous money if it existed.

 

The average person who is a non collector is going to think any amount that is outside of what their own household budget could afford - for most people, a few thousand - would be crazy, and that goes for whatever collectible we are discussing.

 

These people wouldn't understand why a panel goes for less than a cover or why Lassie #1 (I remember that show!) in 9.6 is worth less than avengers 1 in 9.6 (didn't they just come out last year in that movie?) so they sure as heck wouldn't understand the values we attach to them

 

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.

Peter I think what you propose is nuts. Bronty gives you a nod, but I can't.

 

Cycle of price points? Uh no.

 

The "average person" is fckn broke. Negative net worth on the sunniest of days. So it's all beyond them for that reason alone, not even a few thousand 'works', they couldn't pull that together in six months time -for an 'emergency'- and certainly not for a funny picture of a volcano (or whatever!) Only those of means greater than average means, or similar credit line (at the minimum) and understand the "greater fool" concept to begin with even venture forth here. They are (at least somewhat) financially sophisticated. This is already a very small population, made ever-smaller by the "greater fool" understanding of a specific market (MTG in this case, but true too of comics, OA, etc etc - anything more expensive than basic entertainment utility cost). The idea that everybody that went to an Avengers movie, worldwide, is a potential greater fool for 'relevant' (to the movie, I guess??) Avengers or individual character art is...preposterous. At best, a very small percentage, might go to a gallery or museum show of character costumes and/or artwork if they didn't have anything better to do with the time and it was free admission day (heh heh).

 

If you agree with the above (let's say you do, for argument's sake) then there's no way you can "elevate" any of that stuff to "art" (and thus imbue it with some special meaning) or whatever...it's a greater fool commodity. That's true of Old Masters, Warhols, Pollocks too (btw). Appeals to "mass cultural acceptance" or "relevance" or "significance" simply identifies a pool of (potential) greater fools now and possibly in the future, doing so does not add utility or understanding among anybody that the stuff is actually worth more!

 

Very few high end collectors walk into major purchases thinking there's no way out, and it doesn't matter. (Very few...any??? I really wonder.) Everybody spending at that level has a 'greater fool' mentality...have to...there's always opportunity cost countering on the other side...what could you do instead with the money/credit that would yield immediate income not just speculative 'return'?

[Peter G]

Peter,

 

The average person wouldn't even understand why a 9.8 goes for more than a vg; why would they get, without explanations, why say the cover to ASM 14 would be enormous money if it existed.

 

The average person who is a non collector is going to think any amount that is outside of what their own household budget could afford - for most people, a few thousand - would be crazy, and that goes for whatever collectible we are discussing.

 

These people wouldn't understand why a panel goes for less than a cover or why Lassie #1 (I remember that show!) in 9.6 is worth less than avengers 1 in 9.6 (didn't they just come out last year in that movie?) so they sure as heck wouldn't understand the values we attach to them

 

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.

Peter I think what you propose is nuts. Bronty gives you a nod, but I can't.

 

Cycle of price points? Uh no.

 

The "average person" is fckn broke. Negative net worth on the sunniest of days. So it's all beyond them for that reason alone, not even a few thousand 'works', they couldn't pull that together in six months time -for an 'emergency'- and certainly not for a funny picture of a volcano (or whatever!) Only those of means greater than average means, or similar credit line (at the minimum) and understand the "greater fool" concept to begin with even venture forth here. They are (at least somewhat) financially sophisticated. This is already a very small population, made ever-smaller by the "greater fool" understanding of a specific market (MTG in this case, but true too of comics, OA, etc etc - anything more expensive than basic entertainment utility cost). The idea that everybody that went to an Avengers movie, worldwide, is a potential greater fool for 'relevant' (to the movie, I guess??) Avengers or individual character art is...preposterous. At best, a very small percentage, might go to a gallery or museum show of character costumes and/or artwork if they didn't have anything better to do with the time and it was free admission day (heh heh).

 

If you agree with the above (let's say you do, for argument's sake) then there's no way you can "elevate" any of that stuff to "art" (and thus imbue it with some special meaning) or whatever...it's a greater fool commodity. That's true of Old Masters, Warhols, Pollocks too (btw). Appeals to "mass cultural acceptance" or "relevance" or "significance" simply identifies a pool of (potential) greater fools now and possibly in the future, doing so does not add utility or understanding among anybody that the stuff is actually worth more!

 

Very few high end collectors walk into major purchases thinking there's no way out, and it doesn't matter. (Very few...any??? I really wonder.) Everybody spending at that level has a 'greater fool' mentality...have to...there's always opportunity cost countering on the other side...what could you do instead with the money/credit that would yield immediate income not just speculative 'return'?

 

I don't think I'm nuts but I guess "insanity" is a matter of degree and perception. You certainly don't live in my head or understand my thought process. ?

 

All of that aside, we will have to agree to disagree most likely. I think your arguments that people cannot afford to buy comic art, MTG art, or any art because it's expensive and people of modest means cannot afford this stuff is contradicted by the continuing escalation in prices for nice stuff. As an example, the New Mutants number 1 cover that sold for 25k just recently in my opinion is a 50k or 75k cover or maybe more at auction. Nice material will always have demand. Maybe nit constant demand but over a long enough time horizon, demand is there for the right pieces.

 

I also think your argument that this art is just a Ponzi scheme fails to take into account that price discovery is a function of supply and demand over a long enough horizon. Perhaps you don't appreciate comic art or MTG art but my gut says demand will grow and supply is constructed. I bet the sale of the Mona Lisa started in similar fashion with people aghast at somebody paying so much for a "painting".

 

I confess that I am not a snobby art guy that is concerned with what is fashionable in the art world. I know that people look at the action 1 comic book that sold for 3.2 million don't get it. They said the same thing when the book sold for $100, $1.000, $10,000, $100,000, etc etc

 

There are many non-believers for reasons I think that are misguided and flat out wrong. I guess that's what makes a market. And to be clear, I don't know why you believe what you do but I think your biases are incorrect. Time will tell.

[Bronty]

I'll let you two discuss those points but "funny picture of a volcano" was hilarious (and accurate!)

[vodou]

I don't think I'm nuts but I guess "insanity" is a matter of degree and perception. You certainly don't live in my head or understand my thought process.

You're not nuts (that I know of), what you put forth is. Personalize much?

 

All of that aside, we will have to agree to disagree most likely. I think your arguments that people cannot afford to buy comic art, MTG art, or any art because it's expensive and people of modest means cannot afford this stuff is contradicted by the continuing escalation in prices for nice stuff. As an example, the New Mutants number 1 cover that sold for 25k just recently in my opinion is a 50k or 75k cover or maybe more at auction. Nice material will always have demand. Maybe nit constant demand but over a long enough time horizon, demand is there for the right pieces.

By all accounts both the lion's share of income and wealth (two very different things) are being spiraled up into an ever-smaller pool of individuals. "Globalism" as a growth mechanism is bs. (Here I'm specifically referring the minting of more and more millionaires and billionaires as the rest of the world takes the stage from what has been previously and Western 20th century.) The ultra-high net worth/billionaires club was always 'global'; long before the term came foward to popular usage. The faces (and nationalities) may change but the percent of income and wealth -categorically- largely does not. At present the pendulum is swinging toward significant global wealth inequality, in all nations, not just tinpot dictatorships and banana republics. You may choose to ignore what "modest means" means but that doesn't make those folks any more the buyers (greater fools) of the future! NM#1 is a specific, and it's probably a bad idea to do that, as there are always outliers to any broad discussion (which we are having, yes?) but...I'll say that Gene put that one away for $25k. I was consumption spending, not speculative investment, and hardly a major expense for his caliber of income and net worth. Just a pimple, not notable (imo, but Gene can feel free to come out and tell us he's on ramen three meals a day for the next two years if he wants to...but I doubt it!) We won't see if it could do $50k, $75k at public...because he won't be selling. That I'm certain of. (Unless the price of ramen skyrockets while his income is flat??? ha ha). And fwiw, I think $25k was approximately "right". It's all about being a #1 to an ancillary X-title of the 80s (but better than Fallen Angels and some other weak stuff that came out then) by Bob McLeod. I like his art a lot, but let's say that part is worth $1500 tops, the rest is NM#1 heat. To go 2x, 3x that number though...sheee-oot...Getting back on topic, that prices continue to escalate says nothing directly regarding the number of participants, or delta of same. Zero correlation (without further data). Three people can take an auction from $1 to $1k. Two can take it from there to One MEEEEL-YON dollars And so?

 

I also think your argument that this art is just a Ponzi scheme fails to take into account that price discovery is a function of supply and demand over a long enough horizon. Perhaps you don't appreciate comic art or MTG art but my gut says demand will grow and supply is constructed. I bet the sale of the Mona Lisa started in similar fashion with people aghast at somebody paying so much for a "painting".

Ponzi is your word not mine and it mischaracterizes my comments. Greater fool theory is different, another way of saying "speculation" which is not the same as fraud. Nice bait 'n switch though Mona Lisa (again we digress into specifics, which I don't think is of great use) has spent the majority of her life institutionalized. As in not publicly priced or trading. So I think there's nothing here to work with.

 

I confess that I am not a snobby art guy that is concerned with what is fashionable in the art world. I know that people look at the action 1 comic book that sold for 3.2 million don't get it. They said the same thing when the book sold for $100, $1.000, $10,000, $100,000, etc etc

Yes. Correct. Specialists will always have a finer tuning toward greater fools than "the average"; I believe that was my point previously anyway. Us agreeing on this does not extend it out beyond those specialists though, or encourage public speculation at risk levels greater than their tolerance or knowledge (non-specialist) would allow. But...please do drop me a pm when the (general, non-comic) public stampedes NYCC or SDCC or Chicago Wizard and cleans out Artist Alley in the the first ten minutes of doors open. Then I'll know it's high time to SELL everything :)

 

There are many non-believers for reasons I think that are misguided and flat out wrong. I guess that's what makes a market. And to be clear, I don't know why you believe what you do but I think your biases are incorrect. Time will tell.

Time will tell, but we may not be around to observe it! Gene is youngish, the seller of NM#1 to him may not be alive to see what it sells for next time (as an example). And neither of us either. Funny thing, you mix "market" and non-believer in the same sentence. "Belief" has wiped out many an investor as their portfolio sinks into oblivion (on leverage no less!) Er, just ask China Being agnostic or non-believer is probably to best way to play this game (for gain, not for simple enjoyment), if you have to play at all!

 

Understand, I enjoy having my ideas challenged. I think it's a good exercise to work things out and also be exposed to new ideas. But that doesn't mean I've across a superior argument. Yet.

[B-Smooth]

 

Just playin'. I just need to re-read all that 8 times.

[Bronty]

I'll help you out Bill and post a couple more nice alpha

[Bronty]

Black Vise

 

[Bronty]

The Rack

 

[Bronty]

Paralyze

 

 

 

[Bronty]

For those that never played these last three are fabulous but not quite the same level as the ones previously posted. Well.. the rack might be(prob not though), black vise is a small step down from the rack and paralyze a good step down from black vise.

 

The best image is the cheapest one of course

[Peter G]

Understand, I enjoy having my ideas challenged. I think it's a good exercise to work things out and also be exposed to new ideas. But that doesn't mean I've across a superior argument. Yet.

 

Let's start here because it focuses both of our attention on the arguments and away from personalizing or misconstruing of things. As one quick point, I did not intend to "bait and switch" on the concept of "greater fools" with Ponzi, or speculation in general. Nor did I intend to personalize by insinuating that you called my proposal nuts (but not me personally.)

 

 

By all accounts both the lion's share of income and wealth (two very different things) are being spiraled up into an ever-smaller pool of individuals. "Globalism" as a growth mechanism is bs. (Here I'm specifically referring the minting of more and more millionaires and billionaires as the rest of the world takes the stage from what has been previously and Western 20th century.) The ultra-high net worth/billionaires club was always 'global'; long before the term came foward to popular usage. The faces (and nationalities) may change but the percent of income and wealth -categorically- largely does not. At present the pendulum is swinging toward significant global wealth inequality, in all nations, not just tinpot dictatorships and banana republics. You may choose to ignore what "modest means" means but that doesn't make those folks any more the buyers (greater fools) of the future!

 

 

Here we agree on the economics. But that does no justice to the importance of globalization insofar as its effect on the art market. Globalization has enabled for "pop culture" symbols and ideas to be distributed across all corners of the world. This is not a small point. We now see Hollywood movies that are shaping the ideas and tastes of people everywhere on the planet at the same time. This truly is a Post-modern idea whereby the culmination of where all artistic novelty is replaced by fashion. It is revolution of the masses that decide what art is significant and not a bunch of "know it all" elitists.

 

 

NM#1 is a specific, and it's probably a bad idea to do that, as there are always outliers to any broad discussion (which we are having, yes?

 

Here we agree

 

 

Mona Lisa (again we digress into specifics, which I don't think is of great use) has spent the majority of her life institutionalized. As in not publicly priced or trading. So I think there's nothing here to work with.

 

You are correct as regards the specifics and also the history of past sales but these are not the reasons I brought the "Mona Lisa" up as an example. The Mona Lisa is an example of a piece of art that has become almost the "best known". It is an example of art that has found its way into the collective unconscious of people all over the world in every country. If you go Paris it is almost impossible to get close to the painting because of its cult like status. I believe at this point in time it has become "famous for simply being famous".

 

 

Yes. Correct. Specialists will always have a finer tuning toward greater fools than "the average"; I believe that was my point previously anyway. Us agreeing on this does not extend it out beyond those specialists though, or encourage public speculation at risk levels greater than their tolerance or knowledge (non-specialist) would allow. But...please do drop me a pm when the (general, non-comic) public stampedes NYCC or SDCC or Chicago Wizard and cleans out Artist Alley in the the first ten minutes of doors open. Then I'll know it's high time to SELL everything :)

 

 

This is the heart of our disagreement. You see a world of "specialists" driving the demand in the art market. Whereas, I see an art market in which demand is driven by the tastes governed by global ideas and pop culture icons. I postulate that future demand will only increase because comic book art is iconographic and a powerful semiotic signifier that is quickly recognized everywhere across the globe. Not only is the art historically significant in so far as it is representative of the Zeitgeist of the time period (the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, etc etc) but it is also easily accessible to the masses because they recognize Superman, Spiderman, Batman and the pop culture aspect is accesible to the masses as it is spread far and wide all across the world. Most people don't know what a "Walking Man Statue" by Giacometti is but they know who Spiderman is. The art Amazing Spiderman # 14 cover art if it existed would resonate very deeply for large swaths of the global population. Finally, the art is just cool to look at, Kirby, Romita, Ditko, Zeck, Wally Wood, Frazetta, this art is all just so beautiful.

 

 

 

Time will tell, but we may not be around to observe it! Gene is youngish, the seller of NM#1 to him may not be alive to see what it sells for next time (as an example). And neither of us either. Funny thing, you mix "market" and non-believer in the same sentence. "Belief" has wiped out many an investor as their portfolio sinks into oblivion (on leverage no less!) Er, just ask China Being agnostic or non-believer is probably to best way to play this game (for gain, not for simple enjoyment), if you have to play at all!

 

Here there is some room agreement especially insofar as we may not be alive to see alot of the increase in price to its eventual absurd destination. However where we probably disagree, I am not agnostic or a non-believer because fortune favors the bold and pieces bought today at low prices will continue upwards. Yes, markets work in long cycles that you and me might not see in its totality, but certain pieces of art will continue upwards unabated because they are TROPHY PIECES in which demand will likely always be there from the uber wealthy- barring a "Mad Max event.

 

If you believe otherwise, try finding an Action # 1 in CGC 8.0 for a million dollars today, the market has moved past that pricing point and marches upwards and onwards. Not surprising in an era of massive currency debasement and ridiculously low interest rates from central bankers everywhere.