Bob
there are a few things to point out
yes, starting from really the 1960s, comics & baseball cards were
"collected", but they were not published to be collected in the way
we think. That is, they weren't collected for value until a little
later, and with real collectors, we never really thought of value
until the 1970s. previous to that time period, they were seriously
only collected for fun to be read. Virtually all comics were
used for their intended purpose until the late 1960s which was to
read and re-read them which is a very damaging pursuit to the comic book.
Comics as published for collecting began with Conan #1. It was the
first comic I remember with the snipe "First Issue Collector's Item"
or something to that effect. This takes into account the previously
published comic title Marvel Collector's Item Classics, which was
never called a collectible title by us.
Comics, with rare exception (and we're talking post-WW2) had print
runs of usually less than 200,000 copies (Walt Disney's Comics &
Stories peaked at 4million during the 40s and wound down to 500,000
or so in the 50s). Except for a spike in the 1960s, comics have had a
steady decline in publication numbers since the 1940s and today,
fewer comics are produced of all titles combined by all publishers
than any single issue of Walt Disney's Comics & Stories from the
1940s. Less than 1.5million comics are produced every month now. Of
the post WW2 era, only the 1980s X-Men #1 with art by Rob
Leifeld was printed in a million copy run. The average print run of
any comic this month is about 20-50,000 copies and very few go over
that number. I don't think any titles reach 100,000 copies anymore.
that said, the comic investor is as anal as anyone could be. A comic
with a 1/16th inch crease that is otherwise virtually mint is reduced
in value by 8/10th's going from a 10.0 to a 9.8 (slabbed). Maybe even
95/100th's in some cases. It is what has made the comic hobby a joke
to guys like myself who cut our teeth on comics starting in 1962.
However, in general, I do agree with the gist of your post and I
almost 100% agree that linenbacking is really a damage to the poster
as you do. A Star Wars poster that is mint & unbacked should be worth
2-5 times what a linenbacked copy is, but obviously a Frankenstein
1sh is a different story, though I would prefer one that is not
backed myself. (Hey Todd.. I have a few thousand handy.. will ya sell
me yours pretty please?)
Now where comes the Heart of a Lion poster that began this:
when I saw the photo I said to myself "Cool.. I'll put in my bid and
that poster - though it has some visible tears - is in good enough
condition that all I have to do is frame it. It will look just fine"
When the poster got here - crappy packaging and all (and that sellers
negs are all for crappy packaging - you'd think she'd get it by now),
it was very clear that not only would the poster NOT look good just
framed, but that to make it displayable would require $300+ in
restoration fees. That in addition to the fact that by the time it
arrived, due to it's crummy packaging, that it was very simply NOT
THE ITEM I BID ON ANY LONGER.
well.... not interested folks. My intent was to frame up a $250 item,
not a $600 aggravation and also because I am no longer the "manic"
collector that I was 20 years ago, I don't care if I have it or not.
Interestingly I had this conversation with one of my good buddies a
couple weeks ago. If my choice for something I want is either:
A) a poster in nice condition that could be framed and look fine
or
B) a poster that I would see restoration when I looked at rather than
the "Oh cool.. I like this poster" is useless to me.
Marilyn never wore panties. She said "It ruined the line of vision".
She felt when a guy was looking at her ass, she didn't want him to
see her pantyline because it was a distraction. I agree with her.
Anything that supplants your intended thought or view is a no-no. A
distraction.
I have a Tarzan sunday original by Hal Foster from 1934. It's a
kick-ass page that Al Williamson once offered me 3 pages for. I said
no and Al never talked to me the same way again.. It is a sweet
piece. The page (and we're talking about original art folks, not a
newspaper sheet) was framed in antiquity and in someone's basement
for 45 years with a piece of the glass broken out. Where the glass
was missing the paper toned to tan in that area. I have it proudly
framed - in that condition - and I look at it frequently. When I view
it, all I see is this wonderful, incredible piece of art.
My friends always ask why I "don't get it bleached out"
It's simple.. It would ruin it for me. I would no longer see "this
wonderful, incredible piece of art" immediately when I look at it. I
would see that it was bleached - which is the distraction. I don't
want that. I want what I have. I'll let some asshole who gets it
after I die bleach it.
So once this poster arrived in a condition that was no longer
favorable to me, gone it is. I don't want it. If I never find
another, so be it. At least I took a photo so when I do my book, I
can still picture it
Rich
At 11:41 PM 12/30/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote:
OK, I'm going to go off on a rant here... Been meaning to write
this post for years, but never got around to it...
Over the last 5 years, movie poster collectors have gotten a lot
more condition-conscious. No offense, but those people just don't
understand the first thing about movie poster collecting, and
haven't bothered to think about it in the slightest. They just look
at coin and stamp collecting, comic books, sportscards, etc... and
(wrongly) assume that the same issues transfer over to poster
collecting. They don't. Not in the slightest.
Let me explain...
Collecting is ALL about rarity. But, sportscards and coins and
stamps AREN'T rare... Movie posters are... It's NOT the same thing.
Let's break down the important factors...
Sportscards:
quantity - millions of each card
issued - mint
meant to be collected
slight damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Stamps:
quantity - up to tens or hundreds of millions of each stamp
issued - mint
(somewhat) meant to be collected
damaged with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Coins:
quantity - up to tens or hundreds of millions of each coin
issued - mint
(somewhat) meant to be collected
slight damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Comics:
quantity - up to hundreds of thousands or millions of each comic
issued - mint
meant to be collected
minimal damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Paper Money:
quantity - up to tens of millions of each bill
issued - mint
(somewhat) meant to be collected
slight damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Notice how there were huge amounts of each produced, and each was
saved in massive quantities (with insane amounts of mintstate or
near-mintstate examples of each item).
Now, here is where we see some important differences.
Movie Posters:
quantity - only THOUSANDS of each poster
issued - DAMAGED (folded)
NOT meant to be collected
destroyed after use
NOT available to the general public
NOT saved in massive quantities
typical display method (linenbacking) - COMPLETELY DESTROYS POSTER
Comics, coins, stamps, paper money and sportscards ALL need to
create artificial scarcity, since each is available in such massive
quantities, in decent condition. That's why there's been such an
explosion of 3rd party grading services recently. They need a way
to separate these huge quantities and make some identical items more
desirable than others, otherwise, none of them would be worth
anything. That's why you have such ridiculous condition
premiums. There's probably twenty Barry Bonds rookie cards for
every sportscard collector out there. So, they shouldn't be worth
that much at all. They only are because of the artificial scarcity
of condition that's been imposed on the market.
Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a premium for mint
posters - but it should be nowhere near the premium in other
hobbies. Nowhere even remotely close (despite what some poster
collectors seem to think)... There's only a few known copies of
many of the top movie posters. Do you really think the one in the
worst condition is worth a fraction of 1 percent of the one in the
best condition??? Of course not. The premium is miniscule in our hobby.
There's tons of reasons why condition is important in those other
hobbies - there's virtually NO reason why condition is important in
movie poster collecting.
If comics, sportscards, coins, etc... were issued DAMAGED, in
miniscule quantities, to insiders only, and were irreparably damaged
in the slabbing process, then the condition-conscious amongst us
MIGHT have a point. But, they weren't... You can easily compare
collecting coins to comics. You can compare sportscards to
stamps. Paper money to comics. YOU CANNOT compare any of those to
movie posters. It's a completely different hobby - with completely
different issues, despite the fact that, at first glance, they
appear to be very similar hobbies with very similar issues.
Almost NO comics, coins, stamps, etc... are the only known
copy. Virtually none. Whereas, there are literally hundreds or
even thousands of posters that are one of one. When you are talking
about THAT kind of rarity - condition is NOT an issue. Heck, even
the most abundant movie poster is exceedingly rare when compared to
the numbers in all those other hobbies. There's not a hundred
thousand Lawrence of Arabia roadshow one sheets out there - so
there's absolutely NO need to separate the best from the worst, like
there is in all those other hobbies.
A penny in G condition might be worth less than a dollar. That same
penny in MS-69 might be worth ten thousand. The MS-69 is worth so
much more, because it's literally one in a million. One in a
hundred million. That sort of thing DOES NOT translate to the movie
poster hobby in the slightest. Movie posters WERE NOT created in
quantity. And, they were not distributed to the general public. So
there's no need to separate the chaff from the gems. They are far
too rare to bother with that. There might be a hundred thousand
Mickey Mantle rookie cards out there (or Spiderman number 1's), so
of course the best copies will be worth a fortune more than the
worst copies. But, there's not a hundred thousand Citizen Kane one
sheets out there! Are there even more than 50?
In those other hobbies, the average spread might be 10,000%
(probably a lot more). The condition-conscious collectors look at
that, and assume it should be the same in the poster hobby. But,
they aren't looking at it critically. The spread in the poster
hobby shouldn't be the same as the average spread in those other
hobbies - it should be about the same as the spread in those other
hobbies FOR THE RAREST OF THE RARE ONLY. You don't compare apples
to oranges, you compare apples to apples... It should be the same
as the spread between a Honus Wagner rookie in poor and mint, not a
Michael Jordan rookie in poor and mint... If you don't believe me,
check out the spreads on the common and the rare
(comics/coins/stamps/cards/etc...). You'll easily see that the
spreads on the widely available items are unbelievably larger than
they are on the rarest items. There's practically no spread on the
rare items (just like most movie posters).
And, again, it's worth pointing out that (probably) 80 or 90% of the
most important movie posters out there have all been completely
destroyed by linen-backing (and 99.9% of them were irreparably
damaged on issuance by being folded). Virtually EVERY major poster
has been destroyed this way (it's funny to note that the
condition-conscious amongst us are completely and absolutely
ignorant of this fact, or simply choose to ignore it). That's not
the same in those other hobbies.
When there's a million identical items (like in coin, comic or
sportscard collecting), you NEED to distinguish the best items from
the rest. When there's only a handful (like in movie-poster
collecting), it's nowhere near as important.
Certain poster collectors look at the other hobbies, and assume that
the poster hobby should be exactly the same - without taking time to
see WHY those other hobbies have to be so condition-conscious - they
don't take the time to think critically. They don't understand that
the issues in those hobbies ARE NOT the same as the issues in the
poster hobby. Not even remotely close.
That's why it seems like the only people who complain about
condition are the newer collectors, who don't understand the hobby
(and the older collectors who have been swayed by their faulty
reasoning). Those people need to start thinking about WHY condition
is such an issue in those other hobbies, and whether or not it
should be the same in the poster hobby. If a Metropolis one sheet
surfaced, it would still sell for 6 or 7 figures, whether it was
mint - or torn to shreds. It wouldn't matter (sure, if it was mint,
it might sell for 10% more). In this hobby, condition is not that
big an issue.
The dollar-spread between poor and mint in all those other hobbies
might be 100,000% or more (and for very good reason). In the movie
poster hobby, it's only (perhaps) 50-100% at best. Not the same
league. Not even the same sport...
There's absolutely no need to create artificial scarcity in the
movie poster hobby. Posters are already scarce to begin with.
Of course, I didn't do a very good job explaining all of this, but
you get my point (I hope)...
Do you think condition would be an issue if comic books (or
sportscards) were issued folded in eighths? Stamps already
cancelled and stuck to envelopes? Coins already worn down?...
Of course not...
Cheers,
Bob
PS. This is not to say that you shouldn't be pissed when someone
sells you a poster claiming it to be in much better condition than
it really is...
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
