Near six figure MTG art sales 0

[B-Smooth]

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

Legitimate sales of Pokemon cards. I keep track. This is in the last 2 years, and is not the OA. Pikachu illustrator: $40,000. Tropical battle 1999 winner: 15,000, pre-release raichu: $11,000.

And then there are several error cards that sold in five figures. Just for knowledge. It's still going, like Magic, and has the same world wide following. It's just good to know things for future comparisons.

[Bronty]

Hacky sacks and slinkies? That's the older generation. Think skateboards. PS quality old skateboards go for surprising amounts ... google that!

[vodou]

Think skateboards. PS quality old skateboards go for surprising amounts ... google that!

Yep I know about boards. Missed the boat on those, big time. These days so many reissues, I'm wondering (and I'm not alone) if the market has been thoroughly diluted as not everybody that's interested needs to have vintage.

[Bronty]

Whatever. Just an example. Post 1990 it's more about things other than comics than it is about comics. Video games, mtg, pokemon,w hatever.

[vodou]

Whatever. Just an example. Post 1990 it's more about things other than comics than it is about comics. Video games, mtg, pokemon,w hatever.

Aw Mr.Grouchy

[B-Smooth]

Whatever. Just an example. Post 1990 it's more about things other than comics than it is about comics. Video games, mtg, pokemon,w hatever.

Pogs! They'll make a comeback. You'll see!

[Peter G]

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.

 

Bronty,

 

My point to bring up Tin Tin and mcfarlane spidey is that it's about character recognition on the world stage. If you don't like the TIn Tin example, fine ignore that data point but I still think it's valid because it shows global demand on a character that has had a long life in order to reach the million dollar mark.

 

But look at the McFarlane art from the 90s then if you want a more contemporary datapoint or data points. Again, the pieces that get lots of money are because of the character makes the art significant.

 

Why is this the case ? Because it's about the iconic nature of the character that drives demand as much as anything else. To be clear, I am not saying MTG is not a good investment. MTG is a valuable piece of pop culture in its own right, but even you said, who wants to spend lots of money on a volcano painting ? It's going to take a special buyer to "get it". Look at profiles in history auctions of movie props fetching big bucks or other props from "survivor" reality show. There is a market for lots of stuff out there. I just think MTG is too young to assess long term viability right now. It's too early. Will future generations care ? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know.

[Bronty]

Whatever. Just an example. Post 1990 it's more about things other than comics than it is about comics. Video games, mtg, pokemon,w hatever.

Aw Mr.Grouchy

 

Not grouchy at all! Sorry must have come off the wrong way

[Bronty]

Peter,

 

Not sure how you got 'who wants to pay for a volcano' out of what I said

 

I said that vodous comment was accurate. Forget what he called it but let's say goofy. Yes it is just like 50% of every comic covers ever made?

 

The position you seem to think I have is the exact opposite of what I've said here. I've said the image doesn't much matter (goofy/beautiful hardly makes a difference).

 

I might respond in more detail if time permits but it seems fruitless. You just throw your hands up and say "I don't know" or "there's no track record" instead of opening your mind up to think about subject matter with which you aren't familiar. Don't take that as disrespect because it's not - just my opinion based on your various responses here. Rose coloured glasses for comics but not wanting to think about anything else because 'there's no track record'

 

Comics were a big deal in the 80s. Magic was bigger in the 90s. Do we need 50 years of history to consider one might be bigger than the other going forward? Just kind of obvious no?

[Peter G]

Bronty,

 

 

It's ok if we disagree. That's what makes a market.

 

And not that it matters much to the larger point but I do like the MTG art if that counts for anything.

 

And I'm not even saying that black lotus couldn't sell for 100k and go onto break even higher records in due course. My only caveat is that whoever buys it better buy it because they like it on their wall because there may come a day when the music stops. And that goes for the superhero OA too and anything else that's a speculative endeavor for that matter.

 

Place your bets (or don't) and spin the wheel because nobody knows the future for certain and I am not pretending otherwise despite having a different investing thesis and risk profile than you. I am sure you probably feel the same about my "bets".

 

Again ....

 

 

[Bronty]

I could care less if you like the art. I mean that's nice and all, but irrelevant.

 

Guess what? I don't like it, generally speaking. I owned a few pieces and sold them; didn't do it for me personally and I'm not keeping them if I don't dig them enough to really want them.

 

I'm just having a discussion; I'm not invested in the market. I'm not cheerleading for mtg (although I think it will do well over time) or I would own more of it already. If there's something I'm too invested in, it's being surprised that some can't see past their own hobby. I see it here, I see it on other sites too.

 

I collect several things so I hear the chatter in several circles. All seem to love their own hobby (or more likely, their subsection) and have little to no ability to process anything else.

 

Anyways. Love and kisses.

[Terry Doyle]

 

I collect several things so I hear the chatter in several circles.

 

 

What else are you collecting (have we done that as a thread)?

[Bronty]

I'll pm you

[Bronty]

Bronty,

 

 

 

It's ok if we disagree. That's what makes a market.

 

 

 

 

 

You said that a few times and in thinking about how this thread went, I'll counter with... disagreements may make a market, but controversy makes a thread!

 

Bumpy road to get here but 15 pages of discussion on something outside of most people's core interest is pretty cool (thumbs u

[Peter G]

[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.

 

Just was reading : http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/hidden-portrait-found-under-the-mona-lisa-could-lead-to-it-being-renamed-a6764341.html

 

Thought this quote was interesting as it reminded me of our discussion on this topic

 

The Mona Lisa currently hangs in the Louvre and is effectively the most valued painting in the world, its insurance - adjusted for inflation - being at $782 million.

[Bronty]

Underinsured then

[Peter G]

Underinsured then

 

I agree but gives us a baseline to work with.

 

3/4 of a billion dollars for the most expensive piece of art

[vodou]

Underinsured then

 

I agree but gives us a baseline to work with.

 

3/4 of a billion dollars for the most expensive piece of art

It's just a number. The art is irreplaceable (how many won't ever go the Louvre if Mona isn't there??) And I think it's important - is the insurance actually written in EUR or USD? You quoted USD. That pair has been quite volatile the last eighteen months. If it's EUR then the USD value (of the policy) has actually been dropping!

[Peter G]

Underinsured then

 

I agree but gives us a baseline to work with.

 

3/4 of a billion dollars for the most expensive piece of art

It's just a number. The art is irreplaceable (how many won't ever go the Louvre if Mona isn't there??) And I think it's important - is the insurance actually written in EUR or USD? You quoted USD. That pair has been quite volatile the last eighteen months. If it's EUR then the USD value (of the policy) has actually been dropping!

 

You don't have to convince me. I think the the art is priceless.

[buyatari]

Legitimate sales of Pokemon cards. I keep track. This is in the last 2 years, and is not the OA. Pikachu illustrator: $40,000. Tropical battle 1999 winner: 15,000, pre-release raichu: $11,000.

And then there are several error cards that sold in five figures. Just for knowledge. It's still going, like Magic, and has the same world wide following. It's just good to know things for future comparisons.

 

Good point......What of Pokemon card artwork? Any sales data there?

 

If the characters are what is needed then you have them with Pikachu and Charizard do you not? These characters will have been around for 20 years in 2016 and they are still going strong.