All Poster Forum
Common Poster Subjects => The Dealer/Auction House/Seller/Buyer Round Table => Topic started by: crowzilla on November 03, 2017, 02:39:10 PM
-
went to see Thor last night (lots of fun btw) and totally forgot about part 1 of EMP's Halloween auctions and was checking results today and pretty much did a double take when I looked at them, starting with the top two pieces in the auction:
Son of Kong one-sheet $7750 (they note they previously sold a copy more than a decade ago for over $17,000!, and I believe this to be a record low for the title/format).
Mummy's Hand one-sheet $6750 (again they note that their previous copy sold for over $15,000 a decade ago)
A few others jump out:
Invasion of the Body Snatchers half sheet $2255 (this might be a 25-year low for this piece)
Hold That Ghost one-sheet $1490 - another record low for this seller on the title/format.
Dracula's Daughter 3-sheet $754
Creature From the Black Lagoon Half-sheet $2500 (have to go back to 1992 to find one that they sold cheaper)
I stopped looking after the first page, but wouldn't be surprised to find more examples.
Maybe it's just classic horror/sci-fi that is dead, as I did notice some newer film results seem to be mixed in the top results when sorting by price.
Are people not collecting 30s-50s sci-fi/horror anymore? It will be interesting to see if this trend continues throughout the rest of their upcoming auctions.
I wonder if these low results will have a negative impact on the incredible material Heritage has in their upcoming auction?
-
I have a theory or two but will wait for Bruce to chime in. Does he still post here?
-
went to see Thor last night (lots of fun btw) and totally forgot about part 1 of EMP's Halloween auctions and was checking results today and pretty much did a double take when I looked at them, starting with the top two pieces in the auction:
Son of Kong one-sheet $7750 (they note they previously sold a copy more than a decade ago for over $17,000!, and I believe this to be a record low for the title/format).
Mummy's Hand one-sheet $6750 (again they note that their previous copy sold for over $15,000 a decade ago)
A few others jump out:
Invasion of the Body Snatchers half sheet $2255 (this might be a 25-year low for this piece)
Hold That Ghost one-sheet $1490 - another record low for this seller on the title/format.
Dracula's Daughter 3-sheet $754
Creature From the Black Lagoon Half-sheet $2500 (have to go back to 1992 to find one that they sold cheaper)
I stopped looking after the first page, but wouldn't be surprised to find more examples.
Maybe it's just classic horror/sci-fi that is dead, as I did notice some newer film results seem to be mixed in the top results when sorting by price.
Are people not collecting 30s-50s sci-fi/horror anymore? It will be interesting to see if this trend continues throughout the rest of their upcoming auctions.
I wonder if these low results will have a negative impact on the incredible material Heritage has in their upcoming auction?
Trends change. A lot of newer collectors, myself included, have no interest for this kind of material. I don't care for the movies and the posters do no't appeal to me aesthetically. I'm much more interested in the 50s and 60s, probably because it's closer to me in time and accessible.
I see the same trend in fine art. XIX Century art has lost a lot of its shine, its panache, while XX Century is booming. Of course, the masters will always be masters and their work will always be worth a lot, but generally speaking, people are turning away from it to get something fresher.
I assume the same for movie posters. The great movies (and their posters) will always sell, and there will always be crazy bidding wars no one expected, but the appeal will diminish over time, also because people don't have access to these B&W movies anymore, but can still watch a lot of 50s color flicks.
T
-
I landed a "very good" IOTBS for $1,050, well below what I was expecting.
Not sure what's going on, but at minimum it should have been held before Halloween not after. Everybody's burned out on horror jollies at 12:01 Nov. 1.
-
Speaking personally, I have zero interest in any of those titles you listed. I wouldn't pay $50 for any of them because they mean nothing to me.
And in the same auction, a backed Halloween II sold for $800+. That's 10x what a mint rolled copy goes for.
I think T is right; it has less to do with EMP and depends on a variety of other things.
-
You know what went up? My gas bill, water bill, property tax bill etc..
First of all I think bruce is on track to be on par with his best years. Secondly, aside from HA (which is a glitch in the matrix bc not your typical poster auction site) I think everything is low, ebay sales, etc, bet Rich would say the same, and Kirby who's now aceepting "best offers" on all his paper as per his post last week.
I don't think its fair to single out emp. Cost of life is going up everything else going down. Hell they're probably going to stop making movies altogether soon as no one is going out to the cinema anymore.
I've said it before and I'll say it again we need to grow the hobby and ensure our slice of the pie remains a large one. What happens when emp closes shop? Or can you imagine if beanie babies become huge again we are all fucked.
-
I am in a similar position as T, I am more interested in owning a Shawshank Redemption or Back to the future rolled than some old movie material that i haven't seen which holds no interest to me. Most younger collectors i know collect the era in which they grew up with for me thats the 80s onwards. If i am to spend large amounts on posters it will be on a ET bike over the moon, Matrix International lighting, Reservoir dogs Cannes Festival or a Pulp Fiction recalled not King Kong from the 40s. Just because i can afford the old stuff doesn't mean i want to own it.
This era (80s) material sells very well on EMP and as shown by the massive increase in value for Star Wars material over the last 10 years that the younger generation of collectors will spend there money in this era rather than 40s style material. Halloween Australian sold for a record $1,500 - EMP has been getting some wonderful returns for people who are selling 70s and 80s onwards material
Your example of Son of Kong which sold for 7000k or whatever i wouldn't pay $500 for it, it holds zero interest don't care if its rare. Haven't seen the movie never will
My 2 cents
-
Haven't seen the movie never will
For someone like me who ONLY collects posters from movies I have seen, this is key. A lot of the 20s-30s to 1940 movies are impossible to see. Video clubs do not exist anymore and network/cable TV will not program such movies for 1) lack of audience, 2) because they do not have access to a clean copy or 2) because the movie itself doesn't exist anymore. I think accessibility is key. Lots of older folks had access to these movies in the 70s and 80s. Not anymore. The 40s, 50s and 60s can still be seen on AMC regularly and are much easier to relate to. The movies are in color and the quality still works on large screen TVs. Like I said, a classic will always be a classic, King Kong, Dracula, Fritz Lang's M will always sell because they are great movies, regardless of their time period, but a lot of those 30s horror films were not good to begin with.
T
-
Great thread, btw.
T
-
I think Bruce and Co. do a great job, but I do agree that having a Halloween/Horror themed auction so late in October (even bleeding into November) is a mistake. Would be better off at the beginning of October when the horror hounds are hungry. By the time you get your posters it's half way through November and the spooky vibe of October has faded to pumpkin pie and Bing Crosby.
-
I guess I must be the exception around here because at 44, I'm still a relatively young movie poster collector who grew up watching a lot of movies in the 1980s and early 1990s, yet I have very little interest in buying posters from those eras. I mostly collect horror and sci-fi-fi paper from earlier periods (namely 1930s through 1960s, well before I was even born), because posters from those decades tend to be more appealing to me aesthetically. Whether I have seen the films themselves, or the inherent quality of those movies is usually irrelevant to me, as some of the best posters (particularly from the 1950s, such as "Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman", "Wasp Woman" and "Invasion of the Saucer-Men") are for rather terrible movies (some of which can still be enjoyable in a so-bad-they're-good way). As a side note, I'm not sure I agree that 1930s and 1940s movies are "impossible to see", at least certainly not in the case of the Universal films, which are all available on DVDs or via streaming. The vast majority of the films in the first part of EMP Halloween auction can all be seen very easily, so I don't think the low results can be explained by lack of accessibility.
The annual Halloween EMP auction is therefore right up my alley, yet I only purchased one item ("The Land Unknown" 3-sheet) last night. The reason why I didn't bid on the big ticket items in yesterday' sale was either because I already own a copy for a lot of them (such as "The Invisible Man Returns" OS or "Attack of the 50 Ft Woman" insert), or in the case of the OS, because they were all on linen (in the case of "Son of Kong" and "House of Dracula"), and I do not collect linen-backed OS. I suspect other collectors didn't participate in that auction for the same reasons.
-
Errata from my previous post: "...because they were all on linen (in the case of "Son of Kong" and "House of Dracula")..." I meant to write "The Mummy's Hand" instead of "House of Dracula", I'm not sure what happened here! Sorry, I must be more tired than I realized...
-
If this is an actual trend, it's welcomed! Let us peasants in on the action.
-
The reason why I didn't bid on the big ticket items in yesterday' sale was either because I already own a copy for a lot of them (such as "The Invisible Man Returns" OS or "Attack of the 50 Ft Woman" insert), or in the case of the OS, because they were all on linen (in the case of "Son of Kong" and "House of Dracula"), and I do not collect linen-backed OS. I suspect other collectors didn't participate in that auction for the same reasons.
That, I agree with. Even if I had wanted any of the posters mentioned (I did not), I would have not bought them for this specific reason.
T
-
I guess I must be the exception around here because at 44, I'm still a relatively young movie poster collector who grew up watching a lot of movies in the 1980s and early 1990s, yet I have very little interest in buying posters from those eras. I mostly collect horror and sci-fi-fi paper from earlier periods (namely 1930s through 1960s, well before I was even born), because posters from those decades tend to be more appealing to me aesthetically. Whether I have seen the films themselves, or the inherent quality of those movies is usually irrelevant to me, as some of the best posters (particularly from the 1950s, such as "Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman", "Wasp Woman" and "Invasion of the Saucer-Men") are for rather terrible movies (some of which can still be enjoyable in a so-bad-they're-good way). As a side note, I'm not sure I agree that 1930s and 1940s movies are "impossible to see", at least certainly not in the case of the Universal films, which are all available on DVDs or via streaming. The vast majority of the films in the first part of EMP Halloween auction can all be seen very easily, so I don't think the low results can be explained by lack of accessibility.
The annual Halloween EMP auction is therefore right up my alley, yet I only purchased one item ("The Land Unknown" 3-sheet) last night. The reason why I didn't bid on the big ticket items in yesterday' sale was either because I already own a copy for a lot of them (such as "The Invisible Man Returns" OS or "Attack of the 50 Ft Woman" insert), or in the case of the OS, because they were all on linen (in the case of "Son of Kong" and "House of Dracula"), and I do not collect linen-backed OS. I suspect other collectors didn't participate in that auction for the same reasons.
Well said, Ben.
Im another who has always enjoyed not only the wonderful, classic horror films done by Universal (and other studios, like Paramount and RKO), and the posters from these films are some of the finest out there, dealing with this genre.
As the saying goes== "different strokes for different folks." Many young movie watchers today love and view the films from these decades (poster collecting for them may be a different matter due to their price points), and that's exciting to know. I have 2 nephews that are 15 and 13, and they LOVE the old B/W horror films. So that audience will never die. And a HUGE number of films from the 30s are readily available to view. And more are becoming available every day/week/year.
The poster game is another story, being cyclical perhaps and also a bit like a roller coaster, with prices fluctuating up and down. And there can also be be periods, like with any genre, where they may not be as "hot."
That's what makes the hobby so exciting.. to see what the trends are and will be. Auction houses all achieve the best they can... and some do better than others with certain decades, genres and actors.
-
I agree with what most have said on this subject. $800 for a Halloween 2 poster is ridiculous but says to me that only a small amount of collectors are interested in the old horror titles.
It's nothing to do with Bruce/Emovie that the results are 'low'. If you take the average sale of each item in Part 1 that equates to $670. Still not too shabby and I'm sure most dealers here would love results like that.
-
So my pre 1970's poster collection is approaching worth zilch :(
I don't collect much 1970's plus
-
while it is true that some portions of the market have diminished in the past few years, the concept of a Son of Kong one sheet, of which there are only a few of either style extant, selling for $7700 is a commentary on things other than the narrow idea that certain market conditions in one venue represent the market as a whole and the hierarchical structure of the business of the hobby in general.
There can be no doubt that where you sell has as much import as when you sell.
I doubt very much that the Son of Kong (and many other items in Bruce's auction) would not have done better at Heritage. The price on the poster is less than half of any other sale on that poster known since 2000 and only a third of what is known of some auction results. (private sales produced higher results) and for a poster of that level, from a desired title to sell that low just says it was the wrong venue and you can only balance that low result so much against the unnatural result of a Halloween 2 one sheet. Of course, if the SoK poster sold on my site at auction, I'm sure the result would be even lower, but that's why I send such items to Heritage. HA has never disappointed me selling any of my posters, as I would have to beat what I get after commissions over their result, which I estimate is 1 out of 10 items I send them.
There is a reason why Grey Smith has been an underbidder on such things as Dominique's Casablanca one sheet and the Scarlett Empress one sheet etc. - It's because he knows he can do better and if he's only an underbidder, it's not because he doesn't think he could sell it for more, but because the math decreases as a business decision, and clearly he has no problem otherwise filling the slot.
Would HA do better on 100% of what was sold Tuesday? To believe so would be foolishness, but I have no doubt that a number of the higher-ticketed items would have done better, which exemplifies the tiered-system we have in the business
there is also another side to this equation - the effect that publicly selling items for decreasing results actually have on collectors...
anybody here who has ever tried to sell something knows what happens in the market. People look at results from public sources. By and large, sellers (be they dealer, collector, or finder under the carpet) like to look at the highest price achieved, while buyers look at the lowest prices achieved. While some might think that the math becomes "Halloween 2 one sheets $60, $97, $126, $125, $88, $812... average result = $218.. there's my price" is how you arrive at a proper conclusion, that would be false. $812 doesn't belong in the equation. It's an outlier, so the true average is $60, $97, $126, $125, $88 ... average result =$99 and that is right where any of those fools could have bought the poster in his store, raw, if they had taken the time to look.
But even more, when someone contacts me, looking for the poster, most of the time the only result they see is the $60 and that's exactly what they see when any collector is now looking to sell his copy. So the Son of Kong poster (for instance) selling for $7700 has damaged the ability of any dealer, collector or finder of gold to get $15k-25k now.
It affects every person who owns a similar poster where a consignor sells their quality posters and knowledgeable buyers can get spooked by what the see as incongruous results - especially at the low end, lowering the ability to sell even further.
It can be a real dance, and one dancer being tripped up can make numerous people on the dancefloor fall down with them.
-
and by the way, whether the high quality items were sold last week or 3 weeks ago wouldn't matter. The people buying $5000 posters are not usually effected by a 3-week difference. They would bid the same next week on the same items. If it was a week or so after the Heritage auction might make a difference though, seeing as it pulls $2mil out of the hobby.
-
So my pre 1970's poster collection is approaching worth zilch :(
I don't collect much 1970's plus
If you collect 20s-40s posters, I'd advise you to sell them quick. Older folks who have been collecting this stuff will eventually go, their stuff will hit the market with lesser and lesser demand. More material, lesser demand, you do the math.
T
-
If you collect 20s-40s posters, I'd advise you to sell them quick. Older folks who have been collecting this stuff will eventually go, their stuff will hit the market with lesser and lesser demand. More material, lesser demand, you do the math.
T
to some degree, yes
and I'd go all the way into the 1960s T, except I would excise the really good stuff, especially 1920s-30s posters. The average poster from teh 1960s means nothing to most people now. Can even be said of 1970s posters.
-
I collect movie posters from those early decades because I like the films and the poster artwork, especially the stone lithos, and not because their value may go up or down. I don't collect thinking about investment value, so "selling quick" will never be an option for me, due to that reasoning.
-
What posters from the 20s and 30s do you collect, Jeff? I have seen some of Antoine's, but don't remember seeing any of yours, or maybe I missed them. Would love to see them.
T
-
I have a scattering of things from the '20s-1940s, T.
Ive posted a good number of them here on the forum, usually in the New Acquisitions threads over the years, as well as in some of the others, too, like the various foreign poster threads.
I will try and drum up a few links.
-
he has a fabulous Belgian poster. That's for sure....
-
I have a scattering of things from the '20s-1940s, T.
Ive posted a good number of them here on the forum, usually in the New Acquisitions threads over the years, as well as in some of the others, too, like the various foreign poster threads.
I will try and drum up a few links.
The main question is, do you have many in the $10,000s, or even the $5,000s, like Antoine does? I'm only asking because you said you would not be selling them quick if they were losing value, since you don't collect for investment purpose ( thumbsup.gif). Obviously, this thread is about expensive posters selling for less at Emovie and whether it is a new trend. I truly believe it is, for all the reasons I and others have mentioned above. Which is why I'm interested in knowing what people own, if only to understand their reasoning.
T
-
The main question is, do you have many in the $10,000s, or even the $5,000s, like Antoine does? I'm only asking because you said you would not be selling them quick if they were losing value, since you don't collect for investment purpose ( thumbsup.gif). Obviously, this thread is about expensive posters selling for less at Emovie and whether it is a new trend. I truly believe it is, for all the reasons I and others have mentioned above. Which is why I'm interested in knowing what people own, if only to understand their reasoning.
T
Well, I'm buying 30s-50s musicals. I don't expect to break even, but these days I am able to afford to build up a collection of items I couldn't afford 5 years ago. I guess the most classic stuff will hold value, but it is difficult to predict what titles are going to be in that tier.
I was doing the scout leader thing a few years ago and the boys wanted to do a cinematography badge. I did a talk on lighting and decided to ask them to watch The Maltese Falcon so I could talk about noir lighting. They came in for the next session and you would have thought I had assigned them to stick hot needles in their eyes. "There's no color and no action"
-
I was basing my comment on your reply to Steve (50s) where you said: "If you collect 20s-40s posters, I'd advise you to sell them quick."
There was no mention of things being uber priced ($5k-10K) or not, merely that if he had any posters from the 1920s to the 1940s, that he should sell them ASAP. (It read like kind of like a blanket statement with regard to posters from those decades, regardless of value or price).
If I got it wrong, or mis-understood your point, let me know. :)
-
I was basing my comment on your reply to Steve (50s) where you said: "If you collect 20s-40s posters, I'd advise you to sell them quick."
There was no mention of things being uber priced ($5k-10K) or not, merely that if he had any posters from the 1920s to the 1940s, that he should sell them ASAP. (It read like kind of like a blanket statement with regard to posters from those decades, regardless of value or price).
If I got it wrong, or mis-understood your point, let me know. :)
Yeah, we misunderstood each other. No prob. I thought this thread was about somewhat expensive posters selling for less. I'm thinking anything above $5,000. The ones below that, it's hard to tell because they fluctuate so much. One day $1,000, the next $3,000, then back to $1,000. It takes many years to see a trend, although, as Jay says, he can now afford posters he couldn't a while back. I personally don't consider anything below $500 worth discussing, because the ups and downs are not significant enough. Thus my question to you.
T
-
As someone who owns quite a few posters valued at over 5K and 10K dating from before 1950, I can state that I have never really looked at my approach to the hobby as an investment, so the cyclical nature of the market doesn't really faze me. So here's my reasoning: movie posters is just one aspect of what I collect, along with Old Master paintings, drawings, rare maps and old books. I don't consider any of these categories as a money-making scheme, since I have never sold a single item, and don't really plan to at this point. I collect posters that speak to me on an aesthetic level, and the older ones (from the painterly style of the 1930s RKO productions to the exquisite lithos from France of the 1950s and 1960s by the likes of Noel and Soubie) are a great deal more appealing to me than anything done after the mid 1970s. That is the only reason why I buy the posters that I have, not because I'm trying to capitalize on any trend in this field.
To me, there are 2 things in life that I enjoy spending my money on: real estate (houses mainly) and art (fine art or popular art, such as movie posters). I try to make educated decisions on what I buy so as not to grossly overpay for anything, but at the end of the day, I go after things (or places, in the case of real estate) that I love. This criteria is obviously the driving force behind what most of us around here decide to collect, and it is by definition a highly subjective one: I respect Thierry's completist approach to collecting, but to me the notion of owning every single piece of paper available on a specific title is completely bonkers, as even the best examples are bound to offer a repetitive image at best (such is the case with Jaws for example), while other posters are simply not that good to begin with (at least imho). Therefore, it would be foolish for anyone to expect that we all agree on what constitutes an objective value for any given aspect of the field.
Besides, regardless of the surprising results of EMP's last auction, I still think the value of paper from earlier periods will hold up over time, because what is rare will always be appreciated by some collectors, no matter how small the niche.
-
As someone who owns quite a few posters valued at over 5K and 10K dating from before 1950, I can state that I have never really looked at my approach to the hobby as an investment, so the cyclical nature of the market doesn't really faze me. So here's my reasoning: movie posters is just one aspect of what I collect, along with Old Master paintings, drawings, rare maps and old books. I don't consider any of these categories as a money-making scheme, since I have never sold a single item, and don't really plan to at this point. I collect posters that speak to me on an aesthetic level, and the older ones (from the painterly style of the 1930s RKO productions to the exquisite lithos from France of the 1950s and 1960s by the likes of Noel and Soubie) are a great deal more appealing to me than anything done after the mid 1970s. That is the only reason why I buy the posters that I have, not because I'm trying to capitalize on any trend in this field.
To me, there are 2 things in life that I enjoy spending my money on: real estate (houses mainly) and art (fine art or popular art, such as movie posters). I try to make educated decisions on what I buy so as not to grossly overpay for anything, but at the end of the day, I go after things (or places, in the case of real estate) that I love. This criteria is obviously the driving force behind what most of us around here decide to collect, and it is by definition a highly subjective one: I respect Thierry's completist approach to collecting, but to me the notion of owning every single piece of paper available on a specific title is completely bonkers, as even the best examples are bound to offer a repetitive image at best (such is the case with Jaws for example), while other posters are simply not that good to begin with (at least imho). Therefore, it would be foolish for anyone to expect that we all agree on what constitutes an objective value for any given aspect of the field.
Besides, regardless of the surprising results of EMP's last auction, I still think the value of paper from earlier periods will hold up over time, because what is rare will always be appreciated by some collectors, no matter how small the niche.
Tho prices may ebb and flow, or rise and fall for paper of this period, material from these decades, especially the more rare, horror, or those from what are considered penultimate classics (many of the films from 1939, for example), will indeed hold and maintain value. I wasnt anywhere close to being born in the 1930s and my parents were toddlers, yet I find many of the films from this era and their posters to be outstanding. There will always be those in future generations that will appreciate and often admire the works from those early decades.
All one has to do is look at a channel like TCM. The continually show films from the 1930s and 40s, and they aren't showing them for the senior citizens, but for the young and up-and-coming film buffs of today and tomorrow.
And amongst those will be the poster collectors who will continue to want to have a "piece" of one of those films, just as collectors in the past have done.
-
This is a really great thread.
Great comments from Rich, Ben, Thierry and Jeff. thumbsup.gif
-
There will always be those in future generations that will appreciate and often admire the works from those early decades.
Yes there will, except MANY MANY LESS than today and tomorrow. I can't imagine one teenager today watching black and white movies. I think they have much better things to do than sit through slow 30s flicks (or at least I personally hope they do). From my nieces and nephews, all in their 20s, their friends, boyfriends and girlfriends, to the five nannies that have worked for us since my kids were born, I have yet to find ONE that cares about anything older than they are, and that already is a stretch. I'm sure they exist, there will always movie buffs, but way less than there were in the 80s and 90s when entertainment was more "limited".
T
-
This is a really great thread.
Great comments from Rich, Ben, Thierry and Jeff. thumbsup.gif
thanks!
-
Yes there will, except MANY MANY LESS than today and tomorrow. I can't imagine one teenager today watching black and white movies. I think they have much better things to do than sit through slow 30s flicks (or at least I personally hope they do). From my nieces and nephews, all in their 20s, their friends, boyfriends and girlfriends, to the five nannies that have worked for us since my kids were born, I have yet to find ONE that cares about anything older than they are, and that already is a stretch. I'm sure they exist, there will always movie buffs, but way less than there were in the 80s and 90s when entertainment was more "limited".
T
Agreed. Kids of today have such a wide variety of things to watch and do. Most teenagers I know are either a) on social media or b) watching reality TV (and to my annoyance calling these idiots celebrities)
There are thousands of TV channels these days, when I was growing up we had 4 TV channels and we had to 'rent' movies from a video shop!
-
while it is true that some portions of the market have diminished in the past few years, the concept of a Son of Kong one sheet, of which there are only a few of either style extant, selling for $7700 is a commentary on things other than the narrow idea that certain market conditions in one venue represent the market as a whole and the hierarchical structure of the business of the hobby in general.
There can be no doubt that where you sell has as much import as when you sell.
I doubt very much that the Son of Kong (and many other items in Bruce's auction) would not have done better at Heritage. The price on the poster is less than half of any other sale on that poster known since 2000 and only a third of what is known of some auction results. (private sales produced higher results) and for a poster of that level, from a desired title to sell that low just says it was the wrong venue and you can only balance that low result so much against the unnatural result of a Halloween 2 one sheet. Of course, if the SoK poster sold on my site at auction, I'm sure the result would be even lower, but that's why I send such items to Heritage. HA has never disappointed me selling any of my posters, as I would have to beat what I get after commissions over their result, which I estimate is 1 out of 10 items I send them.
There is a reason why Grey Smith has been an underbidder on such things as Dominique's Casablanca one sheet and the Scarlett Empress one sheet etc. - It's because he knows he can do better and if he's only an underbidder, it's not because he doesn't think he could sell it for more, but because the math decreases as a business decision, and clearly he has no problem otherwise filling the slot.
Would HA do better on 100% of what was sold Tuesday? To believe so would be foolishness, but I have no doubt that a number of the higher-ticketed items would have done better, which exemplifies the tiered-system we have in the business
there is also another side to this equation - the effect that publicly selling items for decreasing results actually have on collectors...
anybody here who has ever tried to sell something knows what happens in the market. People look at results from public sources. By and large, sellers (be they dealer, collector, or finder under the carpet) like to look at the highest price achieved, while buyers look at the lowest prices achieved. While some might think that the math becomes "Halloween 2 one sheets $60, $97, $126, $125, $88, $812... average result = $218.. there's my price" is how you arrive at a proper conclusion, that would be false. $812 doesn't belong in the equation. It's an outlier, so the true average is $60, $97, $126, $125, $88 ... average result =$99 and that is right where any of those fools could have bought the poster in his store, raw, if they had taken the time to look.
But even more, when someone contacts me, looking for the poster, most of the time the only result they see is the $60 and that's exactly what they see when any collector is now looking to sell his copy. So the Son of Kong poster (for instance) selling for $7700 has damaged the ability of any dealer, collector or finder of gold to get $15k-25k now.
It affects every person who owns a similar poster where a consignor sells their quality posters and knowledgeable buyers can get spooked by what the see as incongruous results - especially at the low end, lowering the ability to sell even further.
It can be a real dance, and one dancer being tripped up can make numerous people on the dancefloor fall down with them.
Thanks for the very informative post, Rich.
In the details you gave, it shows the number of factors that can come into play (time of selling, venue sold at, general strength or weakness of the market etc) that all come into play when getting sales results.
I would imagine many other collectibles hobbies work much the same way, whether it be sports memorabilia (baseball cards etc), comic books, comic art and the like.
And has so often been discussed on the forum here, any auction is also a bit of a risk. Results may be expected that fall short OR results may far exceed an estimate. So that aspect, too, keeps collectors and consignors on their toes. It's all exciting to say the least.
-
Yes there will, except MANY MANY LESS than today and tomorrow. I can't imagine one teenager today watching black and white movies. I think they have much better things to do than sit through slow 30s flicks (or at least I personally hope they do). From my nieces and nephews, all in their 20s, their friends, boyfriends and girlfriends, to the five nannies that have worked for us since my kids were born, I have yet to find ONE that cares about anything older than they are, and that already is a stretch. I'm sure they exist, there will always movie buffs, but way less than there were in the 80s and 90s when entertainment was more "limited".
T
We do exist! I'm (just about) still in my 20s and I've always been a little film buff and that extends to films from the 20s, 30s, etc. That in part as Jeff mentioned is thanks to channels like TCM, and even Channel 4 (UK) back in the day that got me started. I have friends too who are heavily into early and world cinema, all of that is now fed by the internet. It doesn't take much effort to track down a copy of an obscure noir or an incomplete silent. You'd be surprised.
I accept we may be an anomaly, but maybe not quite as much as you think. But don't listen to me; I'm a girl, I'm not supposed to collect posters to begin with. :P
-
We do exist! I'm (just about) still in my 20s and I've always been a little film buff and that extends to films from the 20s, 30s, etc. That in part as Jeff mentioned is thanks to channels like TCM, and even Channel 4 (UK) back in the day that got me started. I have friends too who are heavily into early and world cinema, all of that is now fed by the internet. It doesn't take much effort to track down a copy of an obscure noir or an incomplete silent. You'd be surprised.
I accept we may be an anomaly, but maybe not quite as much as you think. But don't listen to me; I'm a girl, I'm not supposed to collect posters to begin with. :P
Great post, ladeda.
Those that appreciate and value older films will never vanish. If nothing else, due to the availability of material on DVD, internet, cable, streaming avenues (versus what we had as kids, being a few channels, or ordering from places like Blackhawk Films), the exposure, remastering of soundtracks, restoration of prints, and various films festivals that cater to those that love the silents and the early years of talkies has produced a whole new group/generation/film fans, since so much is readily available to view and enjoy.
And, as I mentioned, with remastered soundtracks and newly restored prints being struck -- these are a FAR cry from the old, scratchy 35mm prints that were shown on TV back in the day. They are a pleasure to watch and discover once again.
Some have no interest in films from that era, this is true... but that doesnt mean that no one does.
-
I agree 100% with Jeff and Ladeda.
-
And I disagree 100% with you three.
In the end, just keep collecting what you collect and be happy. That's what this hobby is all about.
T
-
We all have our POV and that makes for fun and robust discussion... in both film watching and poster collecting.
Carry on! thumbsup.gif
-
T, there is always going to be an audience for classic material. Always. The size of the audience may never be what it once was, but 'art' of any kind always has people interested in whatever art form you're talking about.
Vintage stone litho movie posters will always be popular, no matter the subject. Classic top notch titles (in particular, those shown regularly on tv) will always sell and have an ebb and flow as people come in & go out.
Right now, there are several silent film poster buyers - two of whom are forming actual museums - who are pumping that portion of the hobby. People like that always exist. ebb & flow - yes. Utter disappearance? Never.
-
I never said there wouldn't be any (I don't know where you're getting that from), I said there would be less, many less, and I stick to that. As you may know, my family has been in the art dealing business for 170 years now and I've seen first hand the price of things that my grandfather used to collect fall like rocks, simply because people turned to more modern things. It is a fact and it will also happen to movie posters and billions of other hobbies. Masterpieces will always survive, but the rest will be forgotten. People will lose interest, whether it is today or tomorrow.
T
-
I never said there wouldn't be any (I don't know where you're getting that from), I said there would be less, many less, and I stick to that. As you may know, my family has been in the art dealing business for 170 years now and I've seen first hand the price of things that my grandfather used to collect fall like rocks, simply because people turned to more modern things. It is a fact and it will also happen to movie posters and billions of other hobbies. Masterpieces will always survive, but the rest will be forgotten. People will lose interest, whether it is today or tomorrow.
T
who sez you did?
-
T, there is always going to be an audience for classic material. Always. The size of the audience may never be what it once was, but 'art' of any kind always has people interested in whatever art form you're talking about.
You! Obviously, you were talking to me.
T
-
You! Obviously, you were talking to me.
T
I don't see where I said "T, you say nobody will want the stuff"
although you are total doom & gloom on that era, I don't see you making absolute statements and the only absolute statements I really made in this thread are that what venue something is sold in makes a huge difference, though not in those words.
-
Thierry, art, like many other things in life, is indeed cyclical, because taste changes over time, and things that used to be in fashion at one point, often fall out of fashion. That is a given, in pretty much every collecting hobby, whether we're discussing movie posters or fine art. I don't think anyone dispute that.
However, I do agree with those on this thread who say that there will always be a healthy appetite for paper on classic films, regardless of the vagaries of fashion. Personally I would love nothing more than the market for 1930s paper to collapse completely so that I wouldn't have to compete with the high prices that Universal horror posters fetch, but honestly I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
-
went to see Thor last night (lots of fun btw) and totally forgot about part 1 of EMP's Halloween auctions and was checking results today and pretty much did a double take when I looked at them, starting with the top two pieces in the auction:
Son of Kong one-sheet $7750 (they note they previously sold a copy more than a decade ago for over $17,000!, and I believe this to be a record low for the title/format).
Mummy's Hand one-sheet $6750 (again they note that their previous copy sold for over $15,000 a decade ago)
A few others jump out:
Invasion of the Body Snatchers half sheet $2255 (this might be a 25-year low for this piece)
Hold That Ghost one-sheet $1490 - another record low for this seller on the title/format.
Dracula's Daughter 3-sheet $754
Creature From the Black Lagoon Half-sheet $2500 (have to go back to 1992 to find one that they sold cheaper)
My other question to those who know way more on these older posters than I:
If these were so severely undervalued, and HA could get so much more, why didn't any of the poster hawks dive in and snatch them up?
I've seen Dave and plenty of other well-knowns win prior undervalued EMP auctions and then sell them for more on eBay, or their own sites. Seems weird to leave so much money on the table if they're really that valuable.
Maybe, as T is suggesting, demand isn't as strong for these titles as you think.
-
If these were so severely undervalued, and HA could get so much more, why didn't any of the poster hawks dive in and snatch them up?
I've seen Dave and plenty of other well-knowns win prior undervalued EMP auctions and then sell them for more on eBay, or their own sites. Seems weird to leave so much money on the table if they're really that valuable.
Maybe, as T is suggesting, demand isn't as strong for these titles as you think.
Smart thinking JCM.
Mark
-
If these were so severely undervalued, and HA could get so much more, why didn't any of the poster hawks dive in and snatch them up?
who says that dealers didn't buy any of those items that were so undervalued?
-
who says that dealers didn't buy any of those items that were so undervalued?
Now I know your EMP handle. ;)
-
Now I know your EMP handle. ;)
I believe Rich changes IDs more often than he changes socks ;D
-
Now I know your EMP handle. ;)
I believe Rich changes IDs more often than he changes socks ;D
you would both be wrong
-
you would both be wrong
Awwww. You spoiled it. :)
Could just mean you never change socks?
-
Awwww. You spoiled it. :)
Could just mean you never change socks?
I don't wear socks except in Dec & Jan
-
TMI
-
I wear briefs, not boxers......