Why are there no million dollar movie posters?

[Bruce]

Coins, stamps, vintage photos, baseball cards, and comic books currently all have million dollar plus items on a regular basis, and tons of items that sell in the tens of thousands. Yet movie posters are far more rare, and far more enjoyable (because you can better display and enjoy them), and yet the price levels of vintage movie posters is many steps down from that of the above collectibles.

To me it is just a matter of time before the movie poster hobby catches up to those other collectibles.

What do all of you think?

[crowzilla]

Is this a trick question?
Something along the lines of "since all those other auctions houses fill their results with fake sales, why haven't they faked a million dollar sale (and all the great positive publicity that comes with such a thing)?"

[Bruce]

*sigh*

Would a moderator please delete this thread? There is no point now.

I used to wonder why many super-knowledgeable people never post on this forum, but I no longer do.

[Louie D.]

Possibly because there are less collectors? Also, it's weird with film poster stuff. Do all those other collectables have archives which store them? I know for posters and stills there are great collections at the Margaret Herrick Library, MoMA, and The LOC, so maybe some of the "million $$$" jobs, will be in institutional hands?

[crowzilla]

I used to wonder why many super-knowledgeable people never post on this forum, but I no longer do.

What are you talking about - you post here every day. And are you suggesting that the other members aren't super-knowledgeable?

I do think it is a valid question though. If those other auction houses really are willing to list false high-end sales, why not go ahead and list a gigantic false one? Surely you could get a million dollars worth of publicity by having a million-dollar sale, right?  Or if when they were consigned something like Todd's Bride of Frankenstein one-sheet, why not bid themselves on it at $850K (and thus making it a million dollars with the buyer's premium)?


Movie posters have yet to have even a $500,000 sale - so a million still seems like a long ways off.
I know the Schacter bankruptcy auction had a group of items sell for over a million, but in my opinion that style King Kong 3-sheet is worth nearly as much as the Metropolis poster (and perhaps more in the long run) and there were at least two other six-figure items involved (Invisible Man 1-sheet and the Jailhouse Rock original art) so it is still hard to view any of those items at close to a million yet.

Bruce, for the longest time you were at the top of the high-end chain, but I don't believe you've even had a single $100,000 sale, so it's not hard to imagine that a sale for 10x that amount is still a ways in the distance.

In principal, I agree that it seems like there should be/should have been a million dollar item by now. Especially consider the number of Hollywood-types that collect and the worldwide appeal of film. But I think the overall rarity of posters has held it back, and the notion that it's not really easy to start collecting. Theaters don't sell posters, nor do regular stores. In most every other hobby there is a very-low barrier to entry and that's just not so with posters.

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the other hobbies have established price-guides, so it is easier to gain knowledge in them and that many of them have 3rd party grading systems in place, or at the very least agreed upon grading definitions.  Certainly the other hobbies have been around much longer and have had time to develop to maturity.

[stewart boyle]

I'd never spend a million on a poster.

Stew

[Tob]

Possibly because there are less collectors?

I think this too - the number of poster collectors must be quite small in comparison to other hobbies I guess (partly due to reasons Crowzilla mentions)? Also, I suppose it's a hobby where a lot of collectors buy based on aesthetics...why spend six figures when you can buy beautiful posters for 2 or 3 figures? But I'm miles away from spending even $1000 on a poster, so have no idea or understanding really!

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Is this a trick question?
Something along the lines of "since all those other auctions houses fill their results with fake sales, why haven't they faked a million dollar sale (and all the great positive publicity that comes with such a thing)?"

 

[paul waines]

What the Hell does "super-knowledgeable" mean..?? (there's so many Cartoons going through my head at the moment about that statement...)  is this just another way of saying people who spend hundred's of thousands on posters?  As I don't think spending big bucks makes them any more knowledgeable. The one thing money can't buy is knowledge.

I think the forum has many, very knowledgeable collectors on here. We all tend to be very good at the area we collect in. So is this Super-knowledgeable collector like a Jack of all trades? We have a saying in Jolly old England about them..     Some days I wonder about the "prominent" figures in this hobby, and you wonder why posters aren't as popular as stamps.....  

[guest8]

I think some of the major issues with posters is the rampant creation of fakes/repros/bootlegs and they are getting easier and easier to produce. Its not like forging a Monet .. that takes special skills and talent and I'd venture a guess that only a small number of people in the world could successfully pull it off. Any hack could use a printer in his or her office and start cranking out copies of whatever modern poster that they choose. Not to mention that there are no established "values".. a lot of people buy "things" because they like the looks of it. But those who spend big $$ on anything also see it as an investment. No ones going to pay a $1,000 let alone a million on something that has no real established value or at least the potential to become that valuable.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

the answer is really more specific than anything mentioned here:

it's because there is no poster that anyone currently in the hobby would pay a million bucks for and probably no one who will pay a million for any poster known to exist or even a poster they hope to find.

Furthermore, who really cares if there is such a beast?
Would the presence of a million dollar poster mean we suddenly are the best hobby since Cain killed Abel?
If half the posters you sell go for less than $15.00 would the presence of a million dollar poster raise that to $16.00?
does the presence of uber-valuable posters change the fact that 99.9% of posters sold in the movie poster hobby actually sell for less than $1000 and the number of them that sell for under $100 or under $500 are far more important to the overall health of the hobby than any $1,000,000.00 poster that people can oooh and aaahh about

Fishler does value his Frankenstein 6-sheet at a million, but would it really sell at that price (Maybe Sean knows if Steve was ever offered a mil from someone who will pay it at a moment's notice and if said person is still willing to pay that price)

Heritage does of course hold a number of benchmarks for $100,000.00+ posters sold and we all know that Schacter originally paid $600k for the Metropolis poster that was sold in a group with other posters at an aggregate price of $1.2m early this year. The lack of competition (only a few people participated in the court-ordered auction) at that level says alot more than anything said here.

[Silhouette]

I am not super knowledgeable nor am I a prominent collector but...

I like collecting movie posters, most people know that I also trade and sell posters part-time as a means of achieving the first statement; I don't take collecting movie posters too seriously and as I don't need to earn an income I don't really get worried about what other dealers may be doing (unless it is illegal); I may or may not be a 'lifer' in this hobby but then frankly it's not like this is some exclusive club although some people who have been in it for decades can be a little snobby about it; I like to think I have a sense of humour and often post in this forum with a humourous slant because at the end of the day it's just a hobby; I get a real kick out of seeing what other members collect because I love the variety of posters members will collect, many a title has hit my own want list a a result of their unselfish 'shares'; I have learned a hell of a lot from members, and I freely share my not so super knowledge (here or outside the forum); I remain a member of this forum because most days most people in here also don't take themselves too seriously and happily to share their collection and their knowledge (super or otherwise).

So as to the question why the super knowledgeable and the prominent collectors don't post in here...perhaps the clue is in some of the aforementioned.

As to the question of $Million dollar posters...one view I hold is the age of the hobby itself which may have a direct correlation to the number of collectors in the hobby too, collecting stamps has been going on for some 170 years, coin collecting for some 2,500 years...at best collecting movie posters is maybe 100 years old, given that some posters are now fetching within a few hundred K of that magic million, maybe it is not so far away.

[Matt]

As to the question of $Million dollar posters...one view I hold is the age of the hobby itself which may have a direct correlation to the number of collectors in the hobby too, collecting stamps has been going on for some 170 years, coin collecting for some 2,500 years...at best collecting movie posters is maybe 100 years old, given that some posters are now fetching within a few hundred K of that magic million, maybe it is not so far away.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Dave.


From a slightly different collector of Cinema Memorabilia, he makes a good point around the 2.30 minute mark. 

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/collectors/segments/s3229171.htm

[MoviePosterBid.com]

well said David, but I'm in the camp that a million dollar movie poster is not on the horizon anytime soon if ever.

The equation isn't "this poster should be worth a million". It is as I already pointed out, who is willing to pay that price and for what?

[eatbrie]

Because they're movie posters, not fine art.  Multiple printed images on paper that are less than 100 years old.

T

[Filmlobbycards]

Here is a theory

Maybe it will take a large format fine art poster....perhaps a super rare Jules Cheret  or Toulouse Lautrec (I don't think a Cappiello will do it)...probably a late 1800's stone lithograph 2 sheet or 3 sheet..to break through the million mark which might pull a few other posters, perhaps even a movie poster through (I'm thinking the Fishler Frankie 6 sheet being the first one) ...A landmark European fine art poster result could be a watershed moment...This could pave the way for a movie poster to break through next....with fine art paintings selling for tens of millions..it's hard to imagine a late 1800's stone litho won't eventually do it first...

Perhaps a private poster sale has already broken the million mark? It just wasn't a movie poster?!

[Zorba]

Because they're movie posters, not fine art.  Multiple printed images on paper that are less than 100 years old.

T

I think we have a winner!

[erik1925]

Because they're movie posters, not fine art.  Multiple printed images on paper that are less than 100 years old.

T

So then it may also come down to those multiples that no longer exist, except for a known copy or 2.

 

[CSM]

Personally, I feel that it is in the best interests of most poster collectors if a poster or posters never reach the magic $1,000,000

[Ari]

From a collectors POV I hope posters never go the way of coins and banknotes.
When the prices go up, investors step in, most collectors get priced out of the market.
I sold millions of dollars in coins and banknotes, and the good stuff is rarely in the hands of people who love them, they are in bank vaults never seen by the owner, who only wants an update in value each year.
And many times they never even take possession, it's bought and sold without them even seeing it.
Job blow dreams but never gets that elusive date or mint mark.

[Ari]

I think we have a winner!

Except in the case of coins, banknotes, comics, stamps etc as mentioned above they also aren't fine art, they are also often less than a century old and they are often /usually minted, printed etc in numbers FAR larger than movie posters from any era.

[Neo]

Some good points here.  In black and white terms, the price is directly related to the supply and demand.  One can form hypotheses regarding the level of demand for stuff, but in reality, there are likely numerous factors that determine a specific level of demand.

Regarding the "fine art" debate (as in paintings vs. posters): Frankly, I don't think that's an accurate comparison, as it is comparing apples to oranges.

Regarding the notion that there may never be a million dollar poster: Unless you have psychic powers, there's no way to make that prediction.  As I mentioned in another thread, a few weeks ago I was at the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody, Wyoming, where they have a lot of paintings, and some posters (or as they called them "lithographs").  Personally, I think the posters there are a lot cooler, in various ways, than the paintings.  Who knows whether more people will think like that in the future, thus driving up the demand of posters over paintings?

Regarding the "super knowledgeable" comments: people get too caught up in semantics.  I think Bruce was trying to say that it's no wonder why a lot of people (including people who have a wealth of knowledge on a topic), don't join places like this.  It really is difficult to avoid some comments, as we all know, and sometimes people push things too far, at the wrong time, wrong place, etc.  With that said, no one is perfect, and we all have to walk a fine line between being politically incorrect and being a prick, which everyone interprets differently, of course.  Although this is off topic, personally I despise the tactics of a lot of auctions, and I'll never take part in many auctions, regardless of buying or selling an item, because I refuse to play those games, deal with their service (or lack thereof), etc.  However, I do understand how people want to defend blanket statements that they feel may be implicating certain auction houses that they are big fans of, but there is a time and place, and a right and wrong way about doing things, and some of the comments in this thread were uncalled for, IMO.

[Zorba]

When the prices go up, investors step in, most collectors get priced out of the market.

Great point.

Plus....

Think we read enough pontificating now? 

[Matt]

Regarding the "super knowledgeable" comments: people get too caught up in semantics.  I think Bruce was trying to say that it's no wonder why a lot of people (including people who have a wealth of knowledge on a topic), don't join places like this.  It really is difficult to avoid some comments, as we all know, and sometimes people push things too far, at the wrong time, wrong place, etc.  With that said, no one is perfect, and we all have to walk a fine line between being politically incorrect and being a prick, which everyone interprets differently, of course.

I agree with ya Brandon.

Supply and Demand economics is spot on too, except for my theory.........."Holy shit I forgot to bid on that!"

I've said that a few times.

[Silhouette]

Regarding the "fine art" debate (as in paintings vs. posters): Frankly, I don't think that's an accurate comparison, as it is comparing apples to oranges.

Agree, of course it is not.

It is a collectible and therefore driven by demand - the "art" has absolutely nothing to do with the price, although that may be the reason it is collectible, of course.