|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 10:10:33 GMT -5
Availability has never really been an issue in comics pricing though, demand is what drives prices, not supply. A scarce book is valueless if no one wants it. A common book has value if a lot of people want it and there is perceived competition for it (even if there are more copies available). Like all those indy variant comics, only 1000 copies exist and no one cares which is why they sell for cheap on the publisher's website. And then you have DC New 52 Batman #1, a first print hit $100, it's not exactly scarce as I'm certain it was a #1 seller on Diamond. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 22, 2016 17:17:06 GMT -5
And why have incentive covers that carry the standard issue pricing which is what it should be selling at but the shops are allowed to mark up price to what they see as "trending" on the internet the 1st day it ships? There is no law that a merchant can't sell it above or below that price. Of course, if he has competition, it would be foolish to charge above what is rivals are doing. If anything, many comics get sold below their cover price due to discounts to preferred customers or other sales events That's so strange. Then why do they have a price on the cover? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 22:09:09 GMT -5
Cover prices, even on the 1st day on sale, are nothing but "suggested prices". There is no law that a merchant can't sell it above or below that price. Of course, if he has competition, it would be foolish to charge above what is rivals are doing. If anything, many comics get sold below their cover price due to discounts to preferred customers or other sales events That's so strange. Then why do they have a price on the cover? Why does Amazon sell for less than the price printed on the books they sell? How can back issue sellers charge more than the printed price? How about car dealers selling for more or less than the suggested price? Because none of it is the required price on an item. Lots of things have MSRP, books, movies, clothes, etc. none of them are set it stone. Producers cannot set prices for retailers(one of the reasons monopolies are prohibited), they can however suggest a price that reflects the average mark up retailers would use to get the margin common in the relevant market (i.e. we charge our distributor x for this, understanding if he uses standard mark up he will charge the retailer y, so you should sell this at z to get your standard mark up, that's what MSRP is, but the retailer can choose to sell it for more or less depending on his market, expenses, choices, etc. -M |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 23, 2016 13:49:11 GMT -5
Well, most of mine were in that range, when I bought back issues. Actually, more often than not, I got them for less than $5. I'd go up to $10 for a really important one, like a Steranko; but, not many. $25-30 I felt was justified, for a Golden Age comics. I only had a handful of those. That Exciting #9 was a rare moment of insanity. I tried to talk the guy down to $70. Condition was so-so, inside the cover, though the cover was in good shape. I stopped buying back issues, once trades became more and more common. I picked up the Defenders issues, with the Guardians of the Galaxy for about $.50 each, in the mid-80s; then was aghast when they were going for around $25, after the Valentino series was a hit. That was insane, to me. I never bothered with things like Spider-Man or X-Men, since I could get cheaper reprint comics. For me, it was the story, not the specific comic or printing. I bought a bunch of 70s DC and Marvel, in the 80s, for less than a buck, then saw them selling for over $10 in the 90s, because of something recent. I knew that was out of whack, given how plentiful copies were. That's when I stopped looking at price guides and, even before, I really only used them to hunt for artists on specific books. Availability has never really been an issue in comics pricing though, demand is what drives prices, not supply. A scarce book is valueless if no one wants it. A common book has value if a lot of people want it and there is perceived competition for it (even if there are more copies available). Dealers price things based on demand. If people want it, they pay more for it no matter how many copies are available. Silver Age Marvels keys are hardly scarce, but demand for them is high so prices are high and continue to rise. It's not a limited supply driving value but a high demand. Golden Age books is where supply comes in but I still see books from the 40s in bargain bins (I got one for a buck at a con this year) because it was a title with no demand on it (it was True Facts I believe or something to that effect), so even with supply issues and scarcity, it is still demand that drives prices for Golden Age books. When books are priced beyond what I am willing to pay, I just chalk it up to the fact that other people want it more than I do, but I understand there is a good supply of the books and I can be patient to see if demand drops for a book and prices come down. Rarely happens, but it does (no one is asking for $25 for Adolescent Radiocactive Blackbelt Hamsters #1 any more are they?-the supply is the same as when people were asking that in the mid-80s-maybe even less as copies got thrown away- but demand for it has disappeared and now it is dollar bin fodder). -M Ah, but here's the thing. According to economic theory, market price is an intersection of supply and demand. The value of Golden Age (and to a lesser extent, early Silver Age) comics is the demand for the historically important material and the low supply of said material. That creates a reasonably expected high price. While demand may have shot up for those Bronze Age comics, in the 90s, due to a new series, supply was plentiful, which suggests they were seriously over-valued and price gouging was out of hand. With the speculator boom, such behaviors were well on display. After the fallout, things stabilized a bit, though I think the internet has served to keep the prices higher than they should be, on comics and things like paperback books. Once someone sees a book selling for X price, suddenly everyone is putting it out at X price, regardless of condition. The insanity, to me, is that people will pay that price without batting an eye, when they should realize that the price is somewhat artificially inflated and use that to negotiate to a more reasonable price. However, collectors more often than not act out of emotional responses than strategy or logic. I've been guilty of it, though I usually had strict limits on my emotional attachment. I thought $20 was a bit steep for New Teen Titans #2, when I was in college and the book was only about 5 years old. I bought it for $2 about 2 years after I saw someone selling it for $20, in the same condition. A little patience usually pays dividends. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 14:07:58 GMT -5
However, economic theory is only tangentially related to collectibles at all, because there is a different mentality driving markets on collectibles than there is on other consumer goods.
In collectibles, when there is demand for scare items, prices rise sure. When there are scarce items with no demand, they have little to no value. When there is demand for plentiful items there is still value and higher prices. The common thread in rising prices is the demand, not its relationship to supply. In collectibles, it is want=willingness to spend, thus prices vary according to demand, not supply or relationship between demand and supply. For collectors, want=need and collectibles tend towards more impulse purchases than carefully considered ones. When you add the prevalence of auctions into the equation of acquiring the rarer key issues, and the prevalence of ebay auctions for a lot of other stuff, ego also plays a large ole in determining price, because the need to win mixes with the demand and supply factors go out the window entirely. Yes, patience can net you bargains, but patience is not a common trait in the collectibles market and the collector mentality.
Economic theory on supply and demand is contingent upon need driving the market. There is no need in the collectibles market (and make no mistakes comic pricing is based on it as a collectible not as an entertainment medium or storytelling device), so a lot of the principles of basic economic theory go out the door as inapplicable to the pricing of collectibles.
A lot of the frustration of trying to understand comic pricing comes from people mistakenly trying to apply basic economic theory to it. The collectible market functions differently than normal markets. Applying theories that apply to normal markets only clouds the picture, and adds to the confusion. Should they operate the same as normal markets? In an ideal world yes, but they don't. Books are only worth what people are willing to pay, and when they want books (i.e. when there's demand) they are willing to pay more regardless of the supply. If people are willing to pay more, than that is the price of the item, not the intersection of supply and demand, but what the market will bear based on how much demand there is for the books. Short supply items go for even higher prices if in demand, but it is demand that is the driving factor in collectibles. When people hype limited editions or cite scarcity of the collectible in question it is to drive up demand for the item, which in turn drives up prices if successful, but if it fails to inflate demand, prices won't rise. In collectibles, scarcity is a marketing tool more than a factor in real world pricing.
A lot of the recent books that have jumped n value are not low supply items. The supply has zero factor in pricing. People want the book, are willing to pay x amount for it, so the market bears that price. If a seller then tries to charge x+y for the book, and people are willing to pay that much, then the market is now bearing that price and it is the "value" of the book. Supply never changed. This is not basic economic theory. It is the economics of the collectibles market-a completely different animal than real world economics and one to which real world economic principles do not apply.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 23, 2016 20:37:54 GMT -5
I think I can distill mrp's post about the value of comics not always following economic supply-and-demand rules, especially more current ones, as following
SPECULATION
Prices and demand are being set for what the future might hold, not what the current conditions are
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 23, 2016 20:50:52 GMT -5
However, economic theory is only tangentially related to collectibles at all, because there is a different mentality driving markets on collectibles than there is on other consumer goods. In collectibles, when there is demand for scare items, prices rise sure. When there are scarce items with no demand, they have little to no value. When there is demand for plentiful items there is still value and higher prices. The common thread in rising prices is the demand, not its relationship to supply. In collectibles, it is want=willingness to spend, thus prices vary according to demand, not supply or relationship between demand and supply. For collectors, want=need and collectibles tend towards more impulse purchases than carefully considered ones. When you add the prevalence of auctions into the equation of acquiring the rarer key issues, and the prevalence of ebay auctions for a lot of other stuff, ego also plays a large ole in determining price, because the need to win mixes with the demand and supply factors go out the window entirely. Yes, patience can net you bargains, but patience is not a common trait in the collectibles market and the collector mentality. Economic theory on supply and demand is contingent upon need driving the market. There is no need in the collectibles market (and make no mistakes comic pricing is based on it as a collectible not as an entertainment medium or storytelling device), so a lot of the principles of basic economic theory go out the door as inapplicable to the pricing of collectibles. A lot of the frustration of trying to understand comic pricing comes from people mistakenly trying to apply basic economic theory to it. The collectible market functions differently than normal markets. Applying theories that apply to normal markets only clouds the picture, and adds to the confusion. Should they operate the same as normal markets? In an ideal world yes, but they don't. Books are only worth what people are willing to pay, and when they want books (i.e. when there's demand) they are willing to pay more regardless of the supply. If people are willing to pay more, than that is the price of the item, not the intersection of supply and demand, but what the market will bear based on how much demand there is for the books. Short supply items go for even higher prices if in demand, but it is demand that is the driving factor in collectibles. When people hype limited editions or cite scarcity of the collectible in question it is to drive up demand for the item, which in turn drives up prices if successful, but if it fails to inflate demand, prices won't rise. In collectibles, scarcity is a marketing tool more than a factor in real world pricing. A lot of the recent books that have jumped n value are not low supply items. The supply has zero factor in pricing. People want the book, are willing to pay x amount for it, so the market bears that price. If a seller then tries to charge x+y for the book, and people are willing to pay that much, then the market is now bearing that price and it is the "value" of the book. Supply never changed. This is not basic economic theory. It is the economics of the collectibles market-a completely different animal than real world economics and one to which real world economic principles do not apply. -M Which is why I always sided with John Kenneth Galbraith over the bulk of the other economic theorists. It does tend to give credence to astrology. That's why I mostly stopped collecting. Too many people willing to pay too high a price for stories that don't justify it, in my eyes. Plus, with the rise of the trade collections and the companies looking to reach other markets, you could usually find the story you wanted in a far more affordable book collection. Now, when it comes to comic-related books, the most I ever paid was $75 for the very beautiful limited edition, slipcased, hardcover edition of the Monster Society of Evil serial, from Captain Marvel Adventures. The thing is about the size of an ironing board, printed on great paper and has that wonderful tale, in all of its glory. That was like a Rolls Royce of the reprint world. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 23, 2016 21:51:24 GMT -5
Comics are a strange bird when it comes to collecting. Now that I have a sub to Marvel Unlimited and Comixology, it feels kind of foolish to buy new books and have to store them afterwards. Of the newer stories, there aren't many of them I would want to keep after reading. Books from before 2000 or so, is different in my mind. Most stories are throw away stories from that year on.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 23, 2016 23:44:03 GMT -5
Comics are a strange bird when it comes to collecting. Now that I have a sub to Marvel Unlimited and Comixology, it feels kind of foolish to buy new books and have to store them afterwards. Of the newer stories, there aren't many of them I would want to keep after reading. Books from before 2000 or so, is different in my mind. Most stories are throw away stories from that year on. I confess to not reading many mainstream comics, in the new Millennium; but, I had similar feelings about some other stories. Some took time to grow on me, for me to see them in a new light or to just appreciate good craftsmanship, in an era of quickly rendered stories. I'm a little more forgiving of some things I saw in the 80s and 90s, than I was then. Maybe some of the modern era will rise to that. I do find, though, that a lot of things seem very fleeting to me, both in comics, books, movies and tv. Maybe its the pace of life, which is reflected in entertainment, maybe I'm too old to see the lasting value. I find the marvel movies pleasant enough when I watch them; but, only the Captain America ones have really given me the same sense of joy and fun that I got from the comics; at least, the first two. This last one I was kind of ambivalent with. These days, I am exploring other realms of the comic world. I read a lot of European stuff, dabble in the indies, maybe look at a manga or two, and delve backwards in time, as I explore more of past comics that I missed. Digital sources have given me a much bigger playing ground, putting things like 2000 AD and EC at my fingertips, as well as more obscure titles. It's a bit like comic archeology. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 24, 2016 4:41:37 GMT -5
Comics are a strange bird when it comes to collecting. Now that I have a sub to Marvel Unlimited and Comixology, it feels kind of foolish to buy new books and have to store them afterwards. Of the newer stories, there aren't many of them I would want to keep after reading. Books from before 2000 or so, is different in my mind. Most stories are throw away stories from that year on. I confess to not reading many mainstream comics, in the new Millennium; but, I had similar feelings about some other stories. Some took time to grow on me, for me to see them in a new light or to just appreciate good craftsmanship, in an era of quickly rendered stories. I'm a little more forgiving of some things I saw in the 80s and 90s, than I was then. Maybe some of the modern era will rise to that. I do find, though, that a lot of things seem very fleeting to me, both in comics, books, movies and tv. Maybe its the pace of life, which is reflected in entertainment, maybe I'm too old to see the lasting value. I find the marvel movies pleasant enough when I watch them; but, only the Captain America ones have really given me the same sense of joy and fun that I got from the comics; at least, the first two. This last one I was kind of ambivalent with. These days, I am exploring other realms of the comic world. I read a lot of European stuff, dabble in the indies, maybe look at a manga or two, and delve backwards in time, as I explore more of past comics that I missed. Digital sources have given me a much bigger playing ground, putting things like 2000 AD and EC at my fingertips, as well as more obscure titles. It's a bit like comic archeology.My sub to Comixology unlimited it my attempt to read books other than the big two. So far it's some good stuff, but nothing that i would buy to re-read or own. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 18:06:27 GMT -5
So not an issue, but I am watching a page of original art from Amazing Spider-Man #129 in the November Lonestar auction....  it went way past my ability to buy within the first day, right now it sits at $17,600+ with 2 hours to go. Slightly more affordable, but still out of my range is this page form #139...  closing in on $2K with 2 hours to go. I thought the Eisner splash page from the Aug 27 1950 Spirit section would be the highest art piece in the auction, but it sits at only $1100 pus with 2 1/2 hours to go, so it will have to see a tremendous surge for it to catch the Spidey/Punisher page. I am still feeling out prices in the original art market to have some bearings when I see pieces, but there were a few more affordable pieces in the auction too, and I may someday next year surpass my previous high spent on a comic ($90) on a page of art, but I am still a bit hesitant to pull the trigger on it. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 21:35:30 GMT -5
Final sale price on the page form ASM 129...$29,223, nearly doubling the bid in the final 2 hours of the auction. The ASM 139 page went for $3,504, the Spirit splash page jumped to $4050 overtaking the ASM 139 page (every other page from the 7 page section was also in the auction and went for between $1K-$1185). A Wally Wood ThunderAgents page went for $3600 and change outpacing the second ASM page too. I might have to rethink this whole buying original art thing  -M |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Nov 17, 2016 9:39:41 GMT -5
I can't justify buying original art anymore, not when it'll just sit in a portfolio. Planning to sell a lot (and have) but had a hard time just narrowing it down to 50(!) pieces I "couldn't live without."
Doing OK on return, since I bought a lot in the late 80s-early 90s. Best return was a page from TOS 69 that I picked up for $5 (mainly because it was the only large-size piece in the $5 pile) and sold a couple years ago for over $500.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 12:43:19 GMT -5
Well, it looks like I'm the odd man out (again). Back in 2003, I dropped three large on this particular copy of Human Torch #3 (#2):  At that time, I was transfixed by the dynamic beauty of Alex Schomburg and obsessed with collecting these characters in their pure, unexpurgated forms. I wish to state for the record that no one went hungry as a result of my hobby, nor am I a profligate spender with unlimited resources. I'm just some average Joe what got lucky.  IT'S SOOOO BEAUTIFUL!! I forget, whatever happened to Toro? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 12:51:38 GMT -5
Well, now that I have sold More Fun Comics #60 in order to cover some of the expenses of mine and my wife's separation (It's all good; it went to a great home, Phil Maurice ), the most I've ever paid for an issue is a three way tie. Meet the most cherished books in my collection:  I managed to obtain each for $350 at different times over a three year window. I began with #9 (which remains my favorite comic book possession to this day). Maybe fifteen years back, I first discovered Mile High Comics via the folks at the old classic comics community and joined their mailing list. A few days later, I got an e-mail from Mile High announcing a 60% OFF SALE!!! Now, you know and I know that Mile High's sales are a scam, but no one had told me this at the time, so I flew over to their site and dutifully began searching for books I might want. One of the first places I looked was the early Batman books and...somehow...someway...Batman #9 was there in 3.0 for only $350 after discount. For the first (and possibly only) time in history, Chuck actually offered real savings on a sale. It had to have been a listing error, right? Whatever the case, I got it and worried about what that would do to my budget afterward. It was still worth it. Over the course of the next two years, I scoured ebay for its sister issues. It just seemed like an amazing idea to own a bunch of single digit Batman issues. It was really just plain luck that, over time, I found the one before and after it for around the same price and in roughly the same condition. Each time, it was more than I should have been spending, but come on! These books are now worth about three times what I paid for them. These are the books that killed key issue collecting for me, as I knew I could never top these acquisitions, and acquiring anything less significant no longer held any true thrill for me. They were the highlight of my comic book collecting; these days, I'm far more of a comic book reader, but I regularly pull out these and other trophies to savor. Batman #9 looks like a nice solid book for a 3.0, wonder if a professional CGC grade would be higher? That has to be one of the most classic Batman & Robin poses of all time. If I remember correctly, they did the whole spotlight thing for the opening credits of "Batman the Movie (1966)" . |
|
