• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Near six figure MTG art sales
0

619 posts in this topic

Highly speculative statements of opinion:

 

It is revolution of the masses that decide what art is significant and not a bunch of "know it all" elitists.

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.

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.

 

Are you aware of how many broad assumptions you're making to come up with this (boiled down) string of statements? Note: I'm not saying (comic) art won't continue to enjoy popularity and prices will not rise. No. That trend is in place, but I do not think it's guaranteed or that participation is or will be broad-based. I also wonder, seriously, if the gains of the future will be competitive against alternatives. The gains of the past were (for Marvel and DC superhero art, 1960s-1990s at least) but the future? Already starting from a base that only those of considerable above-average means can tackle...I'm having difficulty with this. Doesn't matter if one billionaire wants it all and is willing to pay what it takes to 'corner' the comic art, or even just the 60s-80s Thor market, but absent that...? Every bubble needs new sucke...er, money :) to keep expanding. All the major economic indications are burning deflation not inflation, even with global hot money pouring into the US. It may be this is already the best of the best scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly speculative statements of opinion:

 

It is revolution of the masses that decide what art is significant and not a bunch of "know it all" elitists.

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.

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.

 

Are you aware of how many broad assumptions you're making to come up with this (boiled down) string of statements? Note: I'm not saying (comic) art won't continue to enjoy popularity and prices will not rise. No. That trend is in place, but I do not think it's guaranteed or that participation is or will be broad-based. I also wonder, seriously, if the gains of the future will be competitive against alternatives. The gains of the past were (for Marvel and DC superhero art, 1960s-1990s at least) but the future? Already starting from a base that only those of considerable above-average means can tackle...I'm having difficulty with this. Doesn't matter if one billionaire wants it all and is willing to pay what it takes to 'corner' the comic art, or even just the 60s-80s Thor market, but absent that...? Every bubble needs new sucke...er, money :) to keep expanding. All the major economic indications are burning deflation not inflation, even with global hot money pouring into the US. It may be this is already the best of the best scenario.

 

I did not expect to persuade you because you are the bear thesis to my bull thesis.

 

And you can say my thesis is highly speculative but it takes nothing away from my thesis. You are "risk adverse" I get it.

 

The art market is ALWAYS about speculation, comic art or otherwise. That point detracts from my thesis not one iota.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I feel the same way about equities, the way you do about comic art. Facebook trading at 15x revenue is too rich for my blood.

 

I will stick with comic art. Thank you very much.

 

I guess that's what makes a market. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's what makes a market. ?

Actually it doesn't. If all the (potential) buyers feel the market is too rich, or there is no liquidity (for different reasons) there is no market. Just sellers :)

Doesn't happen often, but it does, all air to the bottom. Then it's the pink sheets.

 

Yeah, tongue-in-cheek there.

 

Back to what I meant by specialists, perhaps some confusion? Not elite taste-makers. To clarify, I mean those that feel comfortable paying significant sums for nostalgia, because they "get" the nostalgia, not because of some 'hype' that they personally did not participate in. So Bronty and others are all over this MTG stuff, but not me. I wasn't there then, I won't be now. Not a specialist in that sense. Not comfortable with $100k for exceptionally ugly art, imo. I think that's some of the danger in nostalgia-based collecting (vs. Warhols, vs. Ferraris, for example) where the 'hobby' runs the prices up so much, when the average man on the street hears about it...it's already too late, the prices of entry-level (at least $500 for anything 80s that's 'decent' and nostalgic in 2015) are already painful if not impossible for that negative net worth (potential) new money.

 

You ask most adult non-fanboys (so those not already participating, but might want to) how much they'd spend to get a decent page from decent comic of their youth (assuming 1970s-1980s here)...I think $500 would be the most you'd hear and that would be a scary number for many too. We adult fanboys have already run this stuff up. A lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly speculative statements of opinion:

 

Are you aware of how many broad assumptions you're making to come up with this (boiled down) string of statements? Note: I'm not saying (comic) art won't continue to enjoy popularity and prices will not rise. No. That trend is in place, but I do not think it's guaranteed or that participation is or will be broad-based.

 

Who said anything about it being guaranteed ? You want guaranteed returns then go buy some treasuries. Oh, that's right, treasuries yield almost nothing nowadays and are also subject to real risks despite being so called "risk free".

 

And participation being broad based ? Are you kidding me? Haha. You talk like a Wall Street guy. It doesn't have to be broad based to go up. It's one of a kind art not some pump and dump stock that requires massive "suckers" to buy in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Peter G

It is revolution of the masses that decide what art is significant and not a bunch of "know It all elitists"

 

I know what you've stated is a generalization, but from my side, I think these people are necessary to define and explain culture, art and literature, I don't think that someone's attachment to pop culture and its forms as well as simple nostalgia does that. I have respect for many "know it all elitists" who take the time out to do this, though I don't always agree with them they offer different perspectives and insights, historically or otherwise. People can collect in anyway they want, but it doesn't make it artistically important because everyone simply "likes it". I feel that art should challenge something, thought, the visual or otherwise and things that challenge us are hardly ever "liked" by the masses and often take years or decades to be understood or digested, and often that takes a secondary party who has put in the time and effort to deep deep into a particular subject and relay to us their particular insights. And yes some of them are elitist, I agree with you there, but many are just really smart or inquisitive people who are helping make sense of our culture.

I give cudo's to someone like Dan Nadel who is really working off to bridge the gap between comics and art, as well as define comics as an artform.

This not an attack by any means, I'm just trying to a little perspective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's what makes a market. ?

Actually it doesn't. If all the (potential) buyers feel the market is too rich, or there is no liquidity (for different reasons) there is no market. Just sellers :)

Doesn't happen often, but it does, all air to the bottom. Then it's the pink sheets.

 

Yeah, tongue-in-cheek there.

 

Back to what I meant by specialists, perhaps some confusion? Not elite taste-makers. To clarify, I mean those that feel comfortable paying significant sums for nostalgia, because they "get" the nostalgia, not because of some 'hype' that they personally did not participate in. So Bronty and others are all over this MTG stuff, but not me. I wasn't there then, I won't be now. Not a specialist in that sense. Not comfortable with $100k for exceptionally ugly art, imo. I think that's some of the danger in nostalgia-based collecting (vs. Warhols, vs. Ferraris, for example) where the 'hobby' runs the prices up so much, when the average man on the street hears about it...it's already too late, the prices of entry-level (at least $500 for anything 80s that's 'decent' and nostalgic in 2015) are already painful if not impossible for that negative net worth (potential) new money.

 

You ask most adult non-fanboys (so those not already participating, but might want to) how much they'd spend to get a decent page from decent comic of their youth (assuming 1970s-1980s here)...I think $500 would be the most you'd hear and that would be a scary number for many too. We adult fanboys have already run this stuff up. A lot.

 

I said nothing about nostalgia based investing. I too think that is a dangerous reason to buy art and any purchase should be made from a detached position in which emotion is taken out of the equation as much as possible.

 

And as for liquidity drying up, let's mit kid ourselves, that can happen in any market and I bet it will. That's part of the cycle. Boom and bust. Wheat separated from chafe. That is true for the art market and the stock market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Peter G

It is revolution of the masses that decide what art is significant and not a bunch of "know It all elitists"

 

I know what you've stated is a generalization, but from my side, I think these people are necessary to define and explain culture, art and literature, I don't think that someone's attachment to pop culture and its forms as well as simple nostalgia does that. I have respect for many "know it all elitists" who take the time out to do this, though I don't always agree with them they offer different perspectives and insights, historically or otherwise. People can collect in anyway they want, but it doesn't make it artistically important because everyone simply "likes it". I feel that art should challenge something, thought, the visual or otherwise and things that challenge us are hardly ever "liked" by the masses and often take years or decades to be understood or digested, and often that takes a secondary party who has put in the time and effort to deep deep into a particular subject and relay to us their particular insights. And yes some of them are elitist, I agree with you there, but many are just really smart or inquisitive people who are helping make sense of our culture.

I give cudo's to someone like Dan Nadel who is really working off to bridge the gap between comics and art, as well as define comics as an artform.

This not an attack by any means, I'm just trying to a little perspective.

 

Your point is legitimate. Generalizations are usually not a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

I don't want to step I to this argument / debate but let me ask you this. Can't your idea of globalized demand be applied more readily to mtg art than comic art (I'm not saying mtg art will outpace comic art - just getting you to apply your idea to another realm).

 

Mtg is played globally; US comics are not read globally in the same way. Mtg art you already have broad swaths of foreign card collectors who are very familiar with the art and artists, all you need to do is turn them on to them to art as a collectible. Comic art you're asking a guy who paid eight bucks to watch a movie in Finland to suddenly wanna drop beaucoup bucks on something they have no other connection to. One is a long leap. One is a short hop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

I don't want to step I to this argument / debate but let me ask you this. Can't your idea of globalized demand be applied more readily to mtg art than comic art (I'm not saying mtg art will outpace comic art - just getting you to apply your idea to another realm).

 

Mtg is played globally; US comics are not read globally in the same way. Mtg art you already have broad swaths of foreign card collectors who are very familiar with the art and artists, all you need to do is turn them on to them to art as a collectible. Comic art you're asking a guy who paid eight bucks to watch a movie in Finland to suddenly wanna drop beaucoup bucks on something they have no other connection to. One is a long leap. One is a short hop.

 

I think MTG has a much harder road to travel because the images are not iconographic in the same way as superheroes to translate into the main stream pop culture significance.

 

To be clear, I think it's a young niche and way to early to speculate on price points compared to comic books and comic art. People in Finland don't necessarily have to buy a Spider-Man comic to increase the brand awareness or mind share of the character.

 

The superhero genre has at least 80 years behind it now. MTG is very young in comparison.

Edited by Peter G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, I'm not saying mtg art will surpass comic art but just trying to get you to realize that some of your logic is based in your love of the material. It's ok to think comic OA will do great guns and it's ok to think mtg art is overpriced and will never amount to a thing, but apply the logic evenly?

 

Btw, I've played magic twice in the last twenty years. I'm not dressing up as a hurloon Minotaur on Halloween, I assure you. I'm no mtg cheerleader although I did enjoy it for a year or two in college. I just like watching what happens elsewhere in other markets and I do(did) enjoy the cards. But I'm not exactly hanging out at the mtg card shop on Friday nights either so don't mistake my own comments for those of a hardcore fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a final thought - I don't know anybody in America that reads tin tin but there is apparently a big enough global following that Herge tin tin oa regularly exceeds a million dollars. Will demand on MTG be similar in 80 years, I would be lying if I said I knew.

 

American superheroes I know. Batman. Spider-man, hulk, superman is like money in the bank.

 

I think of that pop art characteristics of the spider-man 328 that sold got over 600k and that piece really captures the genre.

 

Not saying the buyer got a good deal. Just saying I get the piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly speculative statements of opinion:

 

Are you aware of how many broad assumptions you're making to come up with this (boiled down) string of statements? Note: I'm not saying (comic) art won't continue to enjoy popularity and prices will not rise. No. That trend is in place, but I do not think it's guaranteed or that participation is or will be broad-based.

 

Who said anything about it being guaranteed ? You want guaranteed returns then go buy some treasuries. Oh, that's right, treasuries yield almost nothing nowadays and are also subject to real risks despite being so called "risk free".

 

And participation being broad based ? Are you kidding me? Haha. You talk like a Wall Street guy. It doesn't have to be broad based to go up. It's one of a kind art not some pump and dump stock that requires massive "suckers" to buy in.

Blah blah. I was simply rebutting this idea you have of all the world's children of today watching Avengers, going out in fifteen years and burning their first year's salary out of college on comic art. You write in a way that suggests (to me, at least) that this is a given (guaranteed) and will be a global phenomenon (broad-based). Don't suppose me to be a Wall Street guy or use my comments for your screed against same. We've done the pm thing, you know I'm more with than against you on those subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be broad based to go up. It's one of a kind art not some pump and dump stock that requires massive "suckers" to buy in.

True. But any time an asset is rising faster than incomes and inflation, especially if significantly so, you have to wonder where the distribution is going, in what quantity, and for how long (not perpetual, yeah?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, I'm not saying mtg art will surpass comic art but just trying to get you to realize that some of your logic is based in your love of the material. It's ok to think comic OA will do great guns and it's ok to think mtg art is overpriced and will never amount to a thing, but apply the logic evenly?

 

Btw, I've played magic twice in the last twenty years. I'm not dressing up as a hurloon Minotaur on Halloween, I assure you. I'm no mtg cheerleader although I did enjoy it for a year or two in college. I just like watching what happens elsewhere in other markets and I do(did) enjoy the cards. But I'm not exactly hanging out at the mtg card shop on Friday nights either.

 

Actually I never said MTG art was overpriced (shrug)

 

Personally, I think the art is interesting and beautiful :cloud9:

 

I just don't know how to price it and the first rule of buying art is to be prepared to have it hang on your wall forever so it's important to buy what u like because who knows if anybody else us gonna like it too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said nothing about nostalgia based investing. I too think that is a dangerous reason to buy art and any purchase should be made from a detached position in which emotion is taken out of the equation as much as possible.

I hear you, but as a seller that's where you're going to get you easiest sale at your highest price...basically the guy that's a slave to the monkey on his back. Not the numbers cruncher. As a buyer chasing a rising market, you have to be thinking about who you'll be selling to, to maximize return and liquidity...back to being a specialist again. Bronty and friends much better as a buyer/seller of MTG than I would be (which is why I won't be).

 

By the same token, if you can find a niche and 'conquer' it before others do...you'll be in a position to feed out your inventory for a long time as those monkeys latch onto backs. It's real and true. And I've done it. But the key is getting in early and buying it all up while it's still concentrated and cheap, not coming in twenty years late and duking it out at auction with BSDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly speculative statements of opinion:

 

Are you aware of how many broad assumptions you're making to come up with this (boiled down) string of statements? Note: I'm not saying (comic) art won't continue to enjoy popularity and prices will not rise. No. That trend is in place, but I do not think it's guaranteed or that participation is or will be broad-based.

 

Who said anything about it being guaranteed ? You want guaranteed returns then go buy some treasuries. Oh, that's right, treasuries yield almost nothing nowadays and are also subject to real risks despite being so called "risk free".

 

And participation being broad based ? Are you kidding me? Haha. You talk like a Wall Street guy. It doesn't have to be broad based to go up. It's one of a kind art not some pump and dump stock that requires massive "suckers" to buy in.

Blah blah. I was simply rebutting this idea you have of all the world's children of today watching Avengers, going out in fifteen years and burning their first year's salary out of college on comic art. You write in a way that suggests (to me, at least) that this is a given (guaranteed) and will be a global phenomenon (broad-based). Don't suppose me to be a Wall Street guy or use my comments for your screed against same. We've done the pm thing, you know I'm more with than against you on those subjects.

 

Hey buddy. Wasn't trying to be offensive if you took my post that way. Was kinda just teasing. Your ok in my book. Will try to pm u at some point so we can catch up proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a final thought - I don't know anybody in America that reads tin tin but there is apparently a big enough global following that Herge tin tin oa regularly exceeds a million dollars.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a final thought - I don't know anybody in America that reads tin tin but there is apparently a big enough global following that Herge tin tin oa regularly exceeds a million dollars.

 

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. :acclaim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0