Moderns with a print run of 500 or fewer copies 0

[SquareChaos]

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Square, don't be so myopic my man.  There are books sought based on the cover alone reaching all the way back to the GA.

-J.

We've had this back and forth a few times, it seems like it always goes the same way. Yes, people collect classic covers, no one ever said they don't, or said that anything but keys are worthless.

Having said that, covers go in and out of style, they are not in the same tier as true story involved / universe impacting keys. It goes back to part of what @PatrickG was saying - if an issue has something in it that fundamentally impacts the lay of the land, I'll take it any day over a classic cover... but I'd also be happy to take both. I'm just saying one has more upside than the other based off of anything verifiable over the long term. Anyone that says otherwise is typically selling something or otherwise vested, or they're turning a discussion on trends into one on religion.

[PatrickG]

32 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

We've had this back and forth a few times, it seems like it always goes the same way. Yes, people collect classic covers, no one ever said they don't, or said that anything but keys are worthless.

Having said that, covers go in and out of style, they are not in the same tier as true story involved / universe impacting keys. It goes back to part of what @PatrickG was saying - if an issue has something in it that fundamentally impacts the lay of the land, I'll take it any day over a classic cover... but I'd also be happy to take both. I'm just saying one has more upside than the other based off of anything verifiable over the long term. Anyone that says otherwise is typically selling something or otherwise vested, or they're turning a discussion on trends into one on religion.

I want to agree with this but, like I said, I think both companies are stretched far enough out of shape that the stories don't really matter.

Invincible is different. Walking Dead is different. Black Science is different. Heck, even Spider-Gwen is different. Because there's no real sense that they are beholden to other media.

On a certain level, I don't think most iconic characters have much of a prayer at meaningful comic book stories unless they tank so badly that Hollywood won't touch them.

Unless it's a cool variant cover, I don't think you can have a meaningful Iron Man comic until you see one where he shaves the goatee. And I like the goatee. I like RDJ. But the comic is a tagalong tie-in product at best unless it strives to be different from the movies. And, sure, Riri and Doom as Iron Men is DIFFERENT but somehow I get the feeling that editorial would be more comfortable with a fill-in Iron Man than they would a Tony deliberately portrayed differently from the movie version. But unless it's Tony and it's not like the movies, it's kind of inconsequential as a comic book. And I think it's easier to have Thor temporarily not be Thor than it would be to do a run like Simonson's run where it felt like he was given ownership of the franchise.

Maybe I'm just burned on the Peter Parker stuff. I'm not one of those guys who's mad at Quesada or Slott or thinks anybody needs to be fired. But I think they need to set fire to the iconography. Peter's not young. They should close the door on him being young and have him change irrevocably. Not as-in, he gets a degree that will probably be taken away later or he runs a business that can be closed down but they need to get onboard with things like marriage and permanently killing some major characters and aging the character up a little. The importance of the comics hinges on the amount of anti-synergy they have with movies. And the anti-synergy shouldn't just be something superficial.

Comic books have to be comic book-y. Movie versions kill their comic book counterparts. Watchmen is kind of an irrelevant brand right now, with tanking sales, because people watch the movie rather than read the book when they have a choice. In general, the best comics right now star characters who have appeared very little or not at all in other media (so far) or they star characters who aren't really successful in other media.

Batman's the exception but, for whatever reason, they let the comic book be comic book-y and drive its own portrayal of the character. I do feel like DC is probably a bit less synergy driven although they still have this desire to streamline/update/revise their continuity that I think robs the comics of seeming important.

Heck, I have Jon Kent's first appearance framed and hanging on my wall right now. And it's two years old and it's already out of continuity. So, ah, how important is it if it's never going to be referenced again?

[SquareChaos]

3 minutes ago, PatrickG said:

I want to agree with this but, like I said, I think both companies are stretched far enough out of shape that the stories don't really matter.

Invincible is different. Walking Dead is different. Black Science is different. Heck, even Spider-Gwen is different. Because there's no real sense that they are beholden to other media.

On a certain level, I don't think most iconic characters have much of a prayer at meaningful comic book stories unless they tank so badly that Hollywood won't touch them.

Unless it's a cool variant cover, I don't think you can have a meaningful Iron Man comic until you see one where he shaves the goatee. And I like the goatee. I like RDJ. But the comic is a tagalong tie-in product at best unless it strives to be different from the movies. And, sure, Riri and Doom as Iron Men is DIFFERENT but somehow I get the feeling that editorial would be more comfortable with a fill-in Iron Man than they would a Tony deliberately portrayed differently from the movie version. But unless it's Tony and it's not like the movies, it's kind of inconsequential as a comic book. And I think it's easier to have Thor temporarily not be Thor than it would be to do a run like Simonson's run where it felt like he was given ownership of the franchise.

Maybe I'm just burned on the Peter Parker stuff. I'm not one of those guys who's mad at Quesada or Slott or thinks anybody needs to be fired. But I think they need to set fire to the iconography. Peter's not young. They should close the door on him being young and have him change irrevocably. Not as-in, he gets a degree that will probably be taken away later or he runs a business that can be closed down but they need to get onboard with things like marriage and permanently killing some major characters and aging the character up a little. The importance of the comics hinges on the amount of anti-synergy they have with movies. And the anti-synergy shouldn't just be something superficial.

Comic books have to be comic book-y. Movie versions kill their comic book counterparts. Watchmen is kind of an irrelevant brand right now, with tanking sales, because people watch the movie rather than read the book when they have a choice. In general, the best comics right now star characters who have appeared very little or not at all in other media (so far) or they star characters who aren't really successful in other media.

Batman's the exception but, for whatever reason, they let the comic book be comic book-y and drive its own portrayal of the character. I do feel like DC is probably a bit less synergy driven although they still have this desire to streamline/update/revise their continuity that I think robs the comics of seeming important.

Heck, I have Jon Kent's first appearance framed and hanging on my wall right now. And it's two years old and it's already out of continuity. So, ah, how important is it if it's never going to be referenced again?

You're not going to get any argument from me defending Marvel - I'm perfectly happy to be on the 'its terrible' bandwagon that everyone else seems to be on. I don't even 'sorta' read DC anymore, the only reason I can kind of keep up with Marvel is due to Unlimited.

 

Anyway, we need some distance. A similar mentality existed among fans a few decades back, and there are still keys from that period in the 90s. Until proven otherwise, I don't see a reason to believe it will be any different in 15 or 20 years. Will we look back at this decade and see this as the time that random non-key limited variant covers came to define comic book collecting? I personally doubt it. My opinion is that they're another niche similar to GGA or 'traditional' classic covers or price variants or Canadian copies or newstand copies - people will continue to collect them all, but the medium as a whole will still be defined by what happens on the page. If the Big Two can't get their act together and get back to telling stories that their fan base actually enjoys then I think a more likely outcome is another crash.

[PatrickG]

I think it's easier for me to have some distance when it comes to something legitimately different like Ms. Marvel or Spider-Gwen or the Young Animal stuff. I see a market for Spider-Gwen in 20 years. I see a market for Spider-man comics based on art. I like Dan Slott... But I can't for the life of me think of what he'd do that would stick for 20 years aside from creating a new character.

J. Jonah Jameson's dad appearing strikes me as having, perhaps, a lower sales potential but more importance than Peter Parker dying and getting replaced or Peter running a company.

Anna Maria Marconi's first appearance in Superior Spider-man #5 strikes me as probably the most important issue of Slott's whole run and the main one collectors may have an interest in 20 years from now, aside from maybe Spider-Gwen's first appearance. Meanwhile, Peter dying, changing costumes, swapping bodies, dealing with clones -- none of that will ultimately matter as much as Jay Jameson or Anna Maria. Those characters will find their way into movies and new stories. Whereas the Big Time costume is going to be an easter egg in video games and action figure lines that nobody will chase the first appearance of.

That said, I'd still put money on a low print run Gwen Stacy Campbell cover outselling Anna Maria's first appearance.

Dollar for dollar, it's hard to say which would be a better investment: $60 for one Gwen Stacy variant or $60 for 15 copies of SSM #5 (Anna Maria's first appearance). I just know that you only have to slab and ship that one Gwen Stacy variant once, which tips the scale in favor of that one, for me. That $60 variant may only sell for $250 graded in ten years and the SSM issue may sell for $150 graded. But you're out 15 slabbing fees instead of one. In the long run, that would favor the individual SSM issue but it's a lot more work, more storage, more auctions, more upfront cost tied up that could go into other things.

Both will outsell the big events in the long run.

[SquareChaos]

Time will tell how it plays out, but right now we're seeing behavior in the secondary market for which we have no real past analog.

 

As for Spider Gwen - as a long time comic reader, I fail to see how the character has staying power. When Harley Quinn showed up, I didn't have anywhere near the same incredulity, I liked the character from the very first time I saw her on television. It was a no brainer to transition. But Spider Gwen? As I've said before, each time I have to type or say the name I feel a little but more dumb.

Spider Gwen, and other character clones like her, encapsulate everything that is wrong with the industry today. A derivative, pandering character that has no visible way to stand up under it's own weight, where the very creation of which saps something important away from a "legacy" character.

As to your predictions on whether or not a Campbell variant will be worth more than a seemingly lame first appearance... who knows? Maybe the next Alan Moore comes along and does something no one predicted? Maybe Campbell's popularity will fade away like so many other artists before him? While anything is possible, it seems like some things are more likely than others simply based on what has come before.

All I know for sure is I'm glad I'm not considering any of my purchases investments - it's easier to make sense out of Wall Street 

[rjrjr]

Invincible comics are a bad investment at this point IMHO.  Comic characters that have longevity, continue to be published, and are relevant today are the ones that collectors want.  Comic history is littered with once hot books that, once they are out of the collector conscious, stagnate in price and decline over time.  I have no doubt there will be those Kirkman fans who will continue to cherish Invincible and that will help maintain value for the short term.  But what happens in 5 years, 10 years, or longer when collectors have move onto the new hot writer or artist?  Look at past examples like Chew, one of the hottest books on these boards for a long while, or Y The Last Man.  Once those books ceased being published, they started becoming irrelevant, and prices stagnated.  No doubt there are eBay listing from people wanting top dollar for those books, but is the demand there to support those asking prices?  I'm sure some who collected those titles still buy to fill the holes in their collection, but there is no incentive for a new collector to want to buy.  I also have no doubt there are those who are buying these books when they dip in prices hoping a movie will jump start interest in the title, but only so many comic book movies can be made and a vast majority of these titles will never make it into another medium like television or movies.  To me, this is catching a falling knife.  Sure, you might get lucky and not get cut.  But a majority of the time, the outcome is not going to be pretty.

This is the problem with many of the indy books.  Marvel will make sure their stable of characters stay relevant.  So will DC.  But Indy books do not operate that way.  And what happens when the Indy book does actually get made into a movie?  Remember 300?  How about Surrogates?  Or a dozen more comic movies like them?  How are those comics doing these days?

It doesn't matter how few copies of a comic were published if nobody wants the book.

Edited April 14, 2017 by rjrjr

[valiantman]

On 4/13/2017 at 5:51 AM, ygogolak said:

Print run of 121? That's an awefully specific and odd number.

That's a calculated number using the March comichron number and the 1:500 ratio.

It's more like 200 printed.  While less than 100 might have been earned, the 1:500 ratio calculation (or any ratio calculation for that matter) is probably always too low by 50 to 200 copies.  There must be extras for file copies, artists, writers, publisher giveaways, and any damages that have to be replaced.

[Aweandlorder]

whats the run on the miraclemans 1:200? 

[PatrickG]

The next Alan Moore could come along at any time. Honestly, I think there are at least 5-10 people equal or better in comics right now.

But the first Alan Moore has a lot of books lining dollar bins. I'm not sure there's a solid investment pick anywhere in his body of work. Well, I did flip one of those 25 print run Dave Gibbons artist editions for a couple hundred more than I paid for it.

If creators drove sales like that, the first professional work by Waid, Morrison, Gaiman, and others wouldn't largely cap out at $25 in top condition.

The story "hook" trumps the technical skill of the creators. But to have a hook, you need a publisher willing to commit to the story direction even if it costs them some media and merch $$$. And without that commitment, all you have is scarcity, short-term gimmicks, first appearances, and pretty covers as sales drivers.

As for Spider-Gwen? No idea if her story direction has long term appeal. That costume does and I think her name being dumb is great. We need more dumb fun. I'm of the Loeb school on a lot of stuff. I'd be all for making Hulk the new Galactus and having him get into punching matches with angels, wearing Infinity Gauntlet boxing gloves. Might as well. It's not as great as literary perfection but if you're drawing a blank on that for a character, being dumb beats being cancelled. And if you go dumb and get cancelled, it beats not trying.

[SquareChaos]

3 hours ago, PatrickG said:

The next Alan Moore could come along at any time. Honestly, I think there are at least 5-10 people equal or better in comics right now.

But the first Alan Moore has a lot of books lining dollar bins. I'm not sure there's a solid investment pick anywhere in his body of work. Well, I did flip one of those 25 print run Dave Gibbons artist editions for a couple hundred more than I paid for it.

If creators drove sales like that, the first professional work by Waid, Morrison, Gaiman, and others wouldn't largely cap out at $25 in top condition.

The story "hook" trumps the technical skill of the creators. But to have a hook, you need a publisher willing to commit to the story direction even if it costs them some media and merch $$$. And without that commitment, all you have is scarcity, short-term gimmicks, first appearances, and pretty covers as sales drivers.

As for Spider-Gwen? No idea if her story direction has long term appeal. That costume does and I think her name being dumb is great. We need more dumb fun. I'm of the Loeb school on a lot of stuff. I'd be all for making Hulk the new Galactus and having him get into punching matches with angels, wearing Infinity Gauntlet boxing gloves. Might as well. It's not as great as literary perfection but if you're drawing a blank on that for a character, being dumb beats being cancelled. And if you go dumb and get cancelled, it beats not trying.

Who are these 5 - 10 Alan Moore or better level talents currently working in comics?

Anyway, my point wasn't about investment potential based off of creator talent, I think maybe we're talking about two different things. Good stories are important to me. Whether their work is $25 or in the dollar bin, the important thing to me is whether it makes comics as a whole better in the long run.

Oh, and one more point on the market worth of something... few things in this hobby is worth what a rationale examination may suggest it is. Things spike suddenly and collapse just as suddenly. The secondary market is full of lemmings rushing over cliffs month after month, but I guess that is neither here nor there in a discussion at speculated low print runs.

[PatrickG]

1 hour ago, SquareChaos said:

Who are these 5 - 10 Alan Moore or better level talents currently working in comics?

Anyway, my point wasn't about investment potential based off of creator talent, I think maybe we're talking about two different things. Good stories are important to me. Whether their work is $25 or in the dollar bin, the important thing to me is whether it makes comics as a whole better in the long run.

Oh, and one more point on the market worth of something... few things in this hobby is worth what a rationale examination may suggest it is. Things spike suddenly and collapse just as suddenly. The secondary market is full of lemmings rushing over cliffs month after month, but I guess that is neither here nor there in a discussion at speculated low print runs.

Brian K. Vaughn, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Daniel Clowes, Rick Remender, Matt Fraction, Joe Casey, Garth Ennis, Kurt Busiek. There's quite a few more I think have more potential than we've ever seen from them.

None may have quite the range that Moore has but everyone of them has surpassed Moore at some point in one or more genres of work. Collectively, I'd say they've outperformed Moore at everything Moore is good at while doing quite a few things better than Moore.

[TheSSurfer]

Would anyone consider comics with such low of a print run, investment material? You would think that only first apps play a part but some variants go for a lot especially dell otto

[rjrjr]

1 hour ago, TheSSurfer said:

Would anyone consider comics with such low of a print run, investment material? You would think that only first apps play a part but some variants go for a lot especially dell otto

The key to many of these book's values are the character, artist, and rarity.  Having all 3 seems to be the linchpin  to ensuring value.  As long as the artist and character remain relevant of course.

I have a problem looking at any of these books as investment however, since I like to  see upward movement in prices for it to be a good investment.  How much higher can a modern book rise that has already seen $1000, $2000, $3000, or more?  Of course, if you got in the ground floor on these books when they were priced low, then I can see those as an investment.  but buying a 5 - 10 year old comic for $5000?  It is hard to believe it will be able to double in price.

This is why it is important to buy books you like, not books that others like.  If you enjoy the book, then the price really shouldn't matter just so long as you can afford it.  If you buy the book because it is hot, that seems like a recipe for disappointment in the future.  Who wants to own boxes of books that you didn't read or enjoy?  I can tell you from experience, getting rid of a comic for a premium price is no easy task after a book is no longer hot.

Edited April 15, 2017 by rjrjr

[SquareChaos]

10 hours ago, PatrickG said:

Brian K. Vaughn, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Daniel Clowes, Rick Remender, Matt Fraction, Joe Casey, Garth Ennis, Kurt Busiek. There's quite a few more I think have more potential than we've ever seen from them.

None may have quite the range that Moore has but everyone of them has surpassed Moore at some point in one or more genres of work. Collectively, I'd say they've outperformed Moore at everything Moore is good at while doing quite a few things better than Moore.

Interesting group, but I'd suggest no one on your list except for Gaiman has had a similar level of success. Ennis, Vaughn, and Clowes are the nearest after that. There is a subjective level at play here, but also an objective one that isn't easily ignored.

 

10 hours ago, TheSSurfer said:

Would anyone consider comics with such low of a print run, investment material? You would think that only first apps play a part but some variants go for a lot especially dell otto

You can likely make money buying and selling most comics as long as you move them quickly.

Edited April 15, 2017 by SquareChaos
Clarity

[Lazyboy]

7 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

Interesting group, but I'd suggest no one on your list except for Gaiman has had a similar level of success. Ennis, Vaughn, and Clowes are the nearest after that. There is a subjective level at play here, but also an objective one that isn't easily ignored.

Grant Morrison is the most similar to Alan Moore. Gaiman's Sandman may top anything by Moore or Morrison, but his second best wouldn't likely even make their Top Ten lists.

[the authority]

9 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

Grant Morrison is the most similar to Alan Moore. Gaiman's Sandman may top anything by Moore or Morrison, but his second best wouldn't likely even make their Top Ten lists.

Absolutely agree with this statement. As much as I love the Watchmen, V, LoXG, Top 10, and the like, Sandman would still probably be in the top spot for me. Morrison's stuff is nearly the same but I'd say his JLA run was as much fun as any JLA story I've ever read, Kingdom Come included, and I LOVE the JLA. It would be hard to pick between them. Warren Ellis would be my top pick with Frank Miller way, way, way up there.

[SquareChaos]

3 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Grant Morrison is the most similar to Alan Moore. Gaiman's Sandman may top anything by Moore or Morrison, but his second best wouldn't likely even make their Top Ten lists.

 

3 hours ago, the authority said:

Absolutely agree with this statement. As much as I love the Watchmen, V, LoXG, Top 10, and the like, Sandman would still probably be in the top spot for me. Morrison's stuff is nearly the same but I'd say his JLA run was as much fun as any JLA story I've ever read, Kingdom Come included, and I LOVE the JLA. It would be hard to pick between them. Warren Ellis would be my top pick with Frank Miller way, way, way up there.

That's why I mentioned subjectivity. Morrison doesn't do anything for me personally.

And I agree on Miller being conspicuously absent.

[PatrickG]

5 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

 

That's why I mentioned subjectivity. Morrison doesn't do anything for me personally.

And I agree on Miller being conspicuously absent.

Miller strikes me as more of an Eisner type. Regardless, most pure writers while they can add tremendous READING value, don't seem to do as much for investing value. Two different things.

You aren't buying a comic to read when you slab a 1:50 cover. You're dealing in a piece of artwork that, as part of its gimmick, is affixed to a comic book.

When dealing in first appearances and such, it's a 50/50 type thing although I'll note that first appearances without a strong cover presence tend to underperform and "first full appearances" (ala Ego and starhawk) seem to be gaining ground as the market preference to "true" first appearances.

As literature, writers are tremendously valuable. In terms of developing clever twists, writers have value. I've written comics. But I don't think the big two really have stood behind their writing in a way that makes writing-based comics investment smart. And it already wasn't all that great an approach. A first appearance is good. A clever twist is decent. But a masterfully executed issue without first appearances or clever twists is a dollar bin book. Most of Moore's career is dollar bin books. Most writers' key issues in their career go cheap. Dan Slott's Ren and Stimpy Spider-man crossover issue would go for big money if writer career trajectory influenced investment. Moore's books would almost all be poor choices to slab unless you could get them signed and witnessed.

I'm all for comics as literature. I'm all for comics speculation. Two unrelated things. I think their overlap really only comes into play with first appearances and clever plot twists and the large publishers have shown no real willingness to stick with most kinds of clever plot twist beyond their short-term commercial value. Which tends to devalue plot twists. Since it only matters if you kill off Spider-man or give Batman a kid if you can be trusted to keep that status quo going forward without waffling or wavering.

[SquareChaos]

10 hours ago, PatrickG said:

Miller strikes me as more of an Eisner type. Regardless, most pure writers while they can add tremendous READING value, don't seem to do as much for investing value. Two different things.

You aren't buying a comic to read when you slab a 1:50 cover. You're dealing in a piece of artwork that, as part of its gimmick, is affixed to a comic book.

When dealing in first appearances and such, it's a 50/50 type thing although I'll note that first appearances without a strong cover presence tend to underperform and "first full appearances" (ala Ego and starhawk) seem to be gaining ground as the market preference to "true" first appearances.

As literature, writers are tremendously valuable. In terms of developing clever twists, writers have value. I've written comics. But I don't think the big two really have stood behind their writing in a way that makes writing-based comics investment smart. And it already wasn't all that great an approach. A first appearance is good. A clever twist is decent. But a masterfully executed issue without first appearances or clever twists is a dollar bin book. Most of Moore's career is dollar bin books. Most writers' key issues in their career go cheap. Dan Slott's Ren and Stimpy Spider-man crossover issue would go for big money if writer career trajectory influenced investment. Moore's books would almost all be poor choices to slab unless you could get them signed and witnessed.

I'm all for comics as literature. I'm all for comics speculation. Two unrelated things. I think their overlap really only comes into play with first appearances and clever plot twists and the large publishers have shown no real willingness to stick with most kinds of clever plot twist beyond their short-term commercial value. Which tends to devalue plot twists. Since it only matters if you kill off Spider-man or give Batman a kid if you can be trusted to keep that status quo going forward without waffling or wavering.

Again, I don't look at any of this from an investment perspective. And I agree with you, if I were to look at it from an investment perspective, it would be around first appearances and "keys" in general. They have always been the bread and butter of comic book collecting.

Where we seem to be talking across each other is on the topic of the top talents in the medium. I've never attempted to make a statement suggesting the best written work is the best investment or even the highest priced... as a matter of fact, I'm convinced a large segment of the comic book public don't even read comic books anymore, but I do think their collecting habits are driven by the trends of people that still do.

All I was really trying to get across is that the medium as a whole suffers when the top tier talent take their work elsewhere. I often focus on writers, and while I believe you need top talent all around, I do tend to believe the writers are more important in a general sense. Anyway, the chances are quite good that many of our high priced first appearances aren't quite as exciting or desirable if that character was never enhanced by a BWS, Claremont, Bendis, Rucka, Millar, Aaron, etc. We all know that first appearances are important due to what happens in the long run, not so much about what happened in that singular appearance.

Finally, just a few direct thoughts you put down I wanted to respond to directly: 

"Most of Moore's career is dollar bin books." - what prolific creator is this not true for? Obviously staying away from SA and older. 

"But I don't think the big two really have stood behind their writing in a way that makes writing-based comics investment smart." - Again, I don't care about investment, but anyone that does would be foolish to ignore well written / developed newer characters. Not so much for the issues they're developed in, but as a way to identify first appearances that they may want to hold on to or gather more of. Regardless of the fact that the Big Two are generally considered to be terrible right now.

 

 

[sclemons]

Global Frequency #1 RRP, 2002 limited to 200 copies
Batman #608 RRP, 2002 - limited to 200 copies
Fables#6 RRP, 2002 - limited to 200 copies (my personal favorite of the ultra-limited, as I have collected 16 of these copies now)