Examples Of Great Original Art Depreciation On Resale?

[jick]

After every new auction, it seems pieces go for "record prices" or higher than what most people expect. I can't seem to find a thread about "big losses" in the hobby. So allow me to start one.

 

Since I don't subscribe to CAF market data, I'd like to ask: Are there concrete examples of original art greatly depreciating in value?

 

I have some but they are my own personal pieces acquired from 2011-12 and auctioned in 2014.

 

1. Neal Adams Batman Illustrated 11 x 14", Cost: $2,000. Auction Result: $800. (that hurt a lot!)

 

2. Freddie Williams cover to DC's Guide To Digitally Drawing Comics - 2 sheets: Cost: $500. Auction Result: $165.

 

Well, I guess those examples above aren't good examples because my acquisition cost for those pieces were based on the price from the artists. I got it straight from the artist's site.

 

Virtually all the pieces I got through auction and resold, went for higher.

 

Are there famous or know examples of auction results that were high, then went for much lower in a succeeding auction?

 

I guess the lesson I should learn will be: it's better to buy from auction rather than direct from the artist.

[Meeley Man]

I guess the lesson I should learn will be: it's better to buy from auction rather than direct from the artist.

 

Not always true. I got a page from Batman #469 (by Tom Lyle) and a Codename: Strike Force #1 splash page (by Brandon Peterson) at auction for about $40.00 each piece. Pretty reasonable. I had to sell them just a short time later for some cash to handle a personal issue. I started the bidding at $5.00 on my eBay auctions, figuring that would attract attention and get people bidding. The Batman page ended at $7.50 and the Peterson splash at $5.00, which shows that buying at auction does not result in a better yield. And it shown me I'll never offer a price like that again. If you want a fair price, you have to ask for it straight out. Expecting buyers to do so, is a losing gambit. Every time!

[Bronty]

That's going to happen on sub 100 pages for sure. I interpret his question as speaking to bigger numbers. Anyways there's lots of examples on heritage of items being resold for much less than the first time, that's probably the easiest place to look.

[Mighty Hal]

Interesting post, jick, but I suspect it'll fade away fairly soon. Most sellers don't want to advertise their losses. It's not good for the ego or the bank account.

 

Dealers definitely won't offer any such stories, nor do I blame them. If they're an artist rep, and it becomes apparent that their client, Joe Bigdraw, can't command anything close to the dealer's prices in the open market, it's going to diminish the artist's sales. (Joe Bigdraw is my favorite! His prices will never go down!) Even when we buy a piece out of love, most of us are aware that we may have to sell the artwork in the future.

 

If we're talking big dollar OA when it goes to auction, I think many of the sellers protect themselves by offering a high starting bid or placing a reserve. If the OA doesn't sell, it's "true value" still hasn't been diminished; after all, it might sell the next time.

[Panelfan1]

Hi Jik,

 

I have lost on items bought both from auction and from artists. I have also gained on some. Since I primarily collect for enjoyment I hope that the average of gains and losses end up either flat, positive or slightly down (worst case). Usually I have sold to prune my collection as my tastes have changed. Freeing up funds to get more of what I really enjoy.

 

The one thing I have learned to watch is art rep pricing. When an artist or rep is pricing new work above auction prices for equal or better work by the same artist, that to me is a sign that it is over-priced. Knowing that it's over priced I then have to decide if it's a keeper because I will likely never be able to get my money out on a resale.

[jick]

Interesting post, jick, but I suspect it'll fade away fairly soon. Most sellers don't want to advertise their losses. It's not good for the ego or the bank account.

 

I sold and lost not on gambling or investment purposes but for personal reasons.

 

I collect original art based on what I like, and when I get them it is with 100% intention of having them as keepers.

 

Hence, I am not shy about posting losses because I am not in the buy and sell hobby. I just had to sell for personal reasons, but I am back to buying (and keeping) now.

 

I know sellers don't want to advertise losses, neither do dealers.

 

What I was hoping was to get some info from those who are market watchers (like Heritage and Comiclink window shoppers), or those like myself who aren't shy to post losses, or perhaps there are high profile stories of some art once-upon-a-time selling for $20,000 then resold years later for only $8,000 -- who knows.

 

So it doesn't harm if I ask. Other don't have to share personal experiences, they can just share their observations or knowledge or research.

[Solar]

What you buy and the price you pay are far more important than where you buy. Sometimes an artist, rep or dealer will offer you a great price. Other times not so much. Sometimes an auction will end for a deal because it didn't have the right eyes on it. Other times two crazy buyers may run the price up.

 

You just need to have a solid grasp on where the stuff you're buying is currently valued and have your finger on the pulse of the market if you want to hold long term.

 

Or just do what I do and buy what you like. I have good taste, so it usually works out if I sell

[delekkerste]

I sold and lost not on gambling or investment purposes but for personal reasons.

 

I collect original art based on what I like, and when I get them it is with 100% intention of having them as keepers.

 

Hence, I am not shy about posting losses because I am not in the buy and sell hobby. I just had to sell for personal reasons, but I am back to buying (and keeping) now.

 

I know sellers don't want to advertise losses, neither do dealers.

 

Like yourself, for most of my collecting experience, I bought art that I liked, with full intention of holding it forever. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum - my tastes/focus changed over time. And, art got much more expensive. Both of these factors caused me to get more active in turning over pieces in recent years, after not selling anything in my first 9 years of collecting aside from a couple of unwanted 3-figure pieces.

 

I've ended up taking a bath at auction on a number of pieces I bought, especially those that I purchased early on. No need to dredge up the past with specifics, but I'm talking about a $13K piece where I only netted $2.4K. Or the $4.5K piece which netted only $1.7K, the $10K piece which netted $7.3K, or the $25K piece where I netted less than $18K (all of those were private purchases which I sold on the auction block). But, in terms of items bought at auction and then resold at auction, I still have some bruises - the $4.2K piece where I netted $1.7K, the $2.6K piece where I netted $1.5K, the $2.7K piece where I netted $1.7K, the $8.1K piece where I netted $6.6K, the $3.9K piece where I netted $1.9K, etc.

 

I'm not saying that one shouldn't buy what they like - they absolutely should; there's no point in buying art that you don't love. But, if resale might be a consideration for you, I think one has to keep in mind that what one likes at a certain price may not necessarily be a shared sentiment.

[AKA Rick]

Comic Art is hard to day-trade on the flip, generally.

 

Most pedigree (I hate the word "Grail") pieces are tracked in the small pool of sources by the small group of players in the game, so there's always opportunity to purchase, especially with the auction model.

 

So, once something sells via auction, rarely are the new owners able to turn a quick profit.

 

It sometimes happens 'tho, but rarely.

 

Usually it's because a vying bidder/buyer fell asleep at the wheel or was pennywise/pound foolish trying to snipe and losing with regret who then proactively contacts the new owner.

 

Rarely does a new owner buy then put it on the market unless they're an art dealer looking to stock their inventory and mark it up to put on their website waiting for a buy or offer.

 

On the direct sales (non auction) side, it can happen where a person sees a bargain, then scoops it up to then resell, but usually there's an "aging" process to make it "fresh to market" months if not years later.

 

So, I don't see any dip in art sales from acquisition to resale indicating a dip or depression, more than being bad timing, unfortunate circumstances or simply bad business practices, or unrealized greed.

 

The only thing that flips quick is generally sketches and commissions, but published art, usually not so much.

[Pete Marino]

Comic Art is hard to day-trade on the flip, generally.

 

Most pedigree (I hate the word "Grail") pieces are tracked in the small pool of sources by the small group of players in the game, so there's always opportunity to purchase, especially with the auction model.

 

So, once something sells via auction, rarely are the new owners able to turn a quick profit.

 

It sometimes happens 'tho, but rarely.

 

Usually it's because a vying bidder/buyer fell asleep at the wheel or was pennywise/pound foolish trying to snipe and losing with regret who then proactively contacts the new owner.

 

Rarely does a new owner buy then put it on the market unless they're an art dealer looking to stock their inventory and mark it up to put on their website waiting for a buy or offer.

 

On the direct sales (non auction) side, it can happen where a person sees a bargain, then scoops it up to then resell, but usually there's an "aging" process to make it "fresh to market" months if not years later.

 

So, I don't see any dip in art sales from acquisition to resale indicating a dip or depression, more than being bad timing, unfortunate circumstances or simply bad business practices, or unrealized greed.

 

The only thing that flips quick is generally sketches and commissions, but published art, usually not so much.

 

I think there's also another factor.

 

The popularity of characters, titles, stories and artists all wax and wane.

 

To pick something out of thin air, Bishop of the X-Men is not nearly as popular as he was in the 90's, but he did see a spike in popularity when he was previewed in the X-Men DOFP movie.

 

Although this tends to make comic prices fluctuate more than OA, the same market forces exist. Maybe the best example in OA is comic strips? There are some popular ones still out there, but the zeal for the art isn't nearly as strong as it used to be.

[Bronty]

not comic art, but some of the elvgrens dipped a bit at auction example

 

right on target, $144k 2009

right on target, $104k, 2013

 

roxanne $179k 2011

roxanne $68k 2016 (ouch).

 

Not to pick on elvgren because his work is unbelievable, just comes to mind and easier to find than searching through a million hits on 'kirby.'

 

There are big losses out there in comic art, you just have to look and/or pay attention.

 

However, the more blue chip the name and the more concentrated the ownership, the more managed the market I think. If someone is heavily invested in Romita or what have you, they aren't going to let a public failure happen. Not to pick on anyone, just an example as that whole deal was public.

 

 

[jick]

I sold and lost not on gambling or investment purposes but for personal reasons.

 

I collect original art based on what I like, and when I get them it is with 100% intention of having them as keepers.

 

Hence, I am not shy about posting losses because I am not in the buy and sell hobby. I just had to sell for personal reasons, but I am back to buying (and keeping) now.

 

I know sellers don't want to advertise losses, neither do dealers.

 

No need to dredge up the past with specifics, but I'm talking about a $13K piece where I only netted $2.4K. Or the $4.5K piece which netted only $1.7K, the $10K piece which netted $7.3K, or the $25K piece where I netted less than $18K (all of those were private purchases which I sold on the auction block). But, in terms of items bought at auction and then resold at auction, I still have some bruises - the $4.2K piece where I netted $1.7K, the $2.6K piece where I netted $1.5K, the $2.7K piece where I netted $1.7K, the $8.1K piece where I netted $6.6K, the $3.9K piece where I netted $1.9K, etc.

 

These are exactly the examples I was looking for. And wow they do seem quite scary!

 

I also fully agree about tastes and focus changing over time.

[JadeGiant]

Wow, 13K to 2.4K?!?! That's hard to believe.

[Twanj]

I seem to recall some BWS pieces on Comic Link that dropped drastically?

[Bird]

I seem to recall some BWS pieces on Comic Link that dropped drastically?

 

I own a BWS piece that I will be hard pressed to get anywhere near what I paid, even when I sell it in a decade or so. I love it though.

 

But I overpaid.

 

A few years ago I bought a non-Hellboy cover for $2K directly from Mike Mignola and watched it hit 50% or so of that on Clink a few months later. In hindsight I obviously would have kept it, especially now that I am actively buying Mignola pieces.

 

My point is overpayment at initial point of purchase more accurately describes this than depreciation in many of the cases discussed so far. I am interested in depreciation as well but think auction to auction would reflect that more accurately than would a piece sold once in a direct sale and once at auction.

 

And Gene, those are some harsh falls. Thanks for sharing. Do you ever see the person who sold you the $13K piece that dropped so harshly? He should owe you a drink every time you meet.

[Matches_Malone]

I took a kick on the gonads with a Frazetta piece sometime ago. Netted $3.5k out of a $8k 'investment ' Didn't want to sell it, but funds were needed at the time.

[jick]

I can post specifics and photos of some of the stuff I have "lost" on over the years. Would that be fine or might that be impolite to the new owner or to the artist who drew the page or the dealer who sold the page? Just wondering before I post.

 

[vodou]

Wow, 13K to 2.4K?!?! That's hard to believe.

Damaged Enrich painting on eBay, iirc. $13k was pre-damage, not sure if Gene got any money out of the insurer and whether that's included or not.

[Mr. Machismo]

Sold a piece I didn't like for $1K less to buy another piece. Sold that piece for 1K more to buy another. All evens out .

[Terry Doyle]

I can probably count on one hand the number of artworks I ever consigned to auction. Thankfully I did okay on them.

 

Always preferred to sell things directly to other collectors and, in that respect, have never took a hit on anything (as I refuse to sell anything for less than what I paid for it).

 

It's quite probable that I'll go the auction route at some future point (not planning to take any high-end items to the grave with me), but would likely want to put reserves on anything I may choose to release.

 

Seems to be a mixed school of thought on reserve or no-reserve, but when I'm reading about heavy losses on non-reserve items it puts me off that idea!