[MOPO] Condition...
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
Re: [MOPO] Condition...
MOPO post of the year (2008) and far from a rant. What long time poster dealers and collectors have always known. Already in 2009 down under (just). Happy New Year. Phil - Original Message - From: Robert D. Brooks To: mop...@sol03.american.edu Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 6:41 PM Subject: [MOPO] Condition... 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
Re: [MOPO] Condition...
Wait unitl the investment boys get going with slabbing (first lobby cards, eventually everything). Then condition won't just be important, it will be the ONLY thing they care about (a pure mint unrestored card from a crappy 1940s movie will likely sell for more than a fair condition restored Casablanca card)! Don't laugh, because they have successfully done it in other hobbies, and those with a real love of the items slowly leave the hobby and are slowly replaced by investment types (with no love of what they are buying, just buying because they are told they are good investments). 35 years ago, when these guys came into the comic book hobby and pretty much ruined it, a good friend of mine named Joe Brancatelli wrote a great article that pretty much nailed how it was ruining the hobby for those who really loved the comics themselves. He described how at comic book conventions, collectors *USED* to gather together and discuss their favorite comics and the stories they contained, and how now investors would gather together and discuss pricing trends. He concluded by facetiously saying that he passed by a group of investors and watched as one of them dropped some ketchup from his cheeseburger onto one of his purchases (this was in the pre-slabbing days). He said that true collectors would have been greatly saddened to have a precious comic stained, but that the investor merely opened his trusty price guide and turned to the section on stains to see how much less his investment was worth! I think this hobby may be pretty unrecognizable in 10 years, especially once many of those with true love of the paper have exited (either out of disgust, or because they have passed on). Bruce On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Phil Edwards p...@cinemarts.com wrote: MOPO post of the year (2008) and far from a rant. What long time poster dealers and collectors have always known. Already in 2009 down under (just). Happy New Year. Phil - Original Message - *From:* Robert D. Brooks b...@damnthe.com *To:* mop...@sol03.american.edu *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2008 6:41 PM *Subject:* [MOPO] Condition... 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
Re: [MOPO] Condition...
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
Re: [MOPO] Condition...
Hey Rich, et al: Actually, I can't say that I really hate linen-backing. If you want to see a poster as the artist intended it, then you really have no choice. Well, I guess there are a couple of other choices, but they're just as damaging as linen-backing. I always laugh when I hear about linen-backing being 'totally reversible!' Sure, they may use archival materials and water-soluable pigments (not all that say they do actually do) - but linen-backing is about as reversible as losing your virginity. Here's a fun test: Take a brand new sheet of paper, dunk it in water, cover one entire side of it in paste and stick it to a rough surface and let it dry. Then, scribble over it with pencil-crayons. Now, try and remove it and erase everything (so, back into the water it goes). Once it's dried again, just how close do you think it's going to be to the crisp, new sheet of paper you started with?!? Reversible my ass... I've seen tons of de-slabbed coins, comics and cards - I've never seen a de-linen-backed poster (that wasn't re-backed immediately). And, for very good reason... Nappy Yew Hear! Bob - Original Message - From: Richard Halegua Comic Art To: mop...@sol03.american.edu Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Condition... 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
