Rarity or "cool"?

[Ari]

New discussion about putting together a collection of "rare" titles has me thinking.

While most of these will be considered rare, or maybe scarce, its not ONLY that.

There are a lot of RARER posters, but they wont maker such a list, as they aren't (as) sought after.

I have a few posters that I have never seen another copy of, EVER, there probably is, there certainly WAS, but if you wanted one, good luck.
BUT if I listed for sale id probably get very little (comparatively) , or maybe not sell at all.

The COOL titles, that are called RARE, will sell obviously. But surely not all of these are really rare. Except stuff like that lenticular that apparently half a dozen of.

I have known collectors who do collect like this, and its a notch on the bed head to get one, but I haven't really heard of a collector admitting it (before), usually they pretend it just happens thats what they love most by chance.

Thinking out loud.

Ari
PS- not to disparage anyone, I find it interesting.

[brude]

Well, my only problem contributing to a list of 'rare' titles is that our knowledge of what we know is rare could dramatically affect its value.

That's great for the seller and terrible for the collector.

But, if you're a collector looking to sell, the potential value of something that is considered 'rare' is best realized at the auction house of choice.

Its kinda like outing.
 

[paul waines]

Who said Outing.....

[erik1925]

Uh-oh.

 

[50s]

What is this thread about please?

[erik1925]

What is this thread about please?

       

[CSM]

Recipe for disaster if that is the only focus on collecting in my opinion. 

[jayn_j]

I always felt that Mel was a master of creating buzz on posters he had purchased and making them desirable.  He would buy one, and promote it here.  Suddenly the desirability spiked.

For example, I have had this one for years.  Very nice image, but it has been a $50 poster forever.  Mel bought it a couple of years ago and promoted it here.  Price doubled overnight.


For rare, look at my avatar.  I am pretty well convinced I have the only known copy of that poster.  It is of a lost film, from a famous book and features a desirable actor, Richard Dix.  It still isn't worth a lot.

[paul waines]

Didn't we have a scarce but not worth much thread already??

[erik1925]

Didn't we have a scarce but not worth much thread already??

Yessir. 

[ladeda]

I've also noticed paper on a film can be rare, the film itself can be (historically) important but the posters never really command much. I have more than a few examples of those myself. Posters I thought I could never own before I started collecting because I assumed there would be no way I could afford them given how important the films are.

Soon I was relieved to find there's actually a large section of collectors who don't know (or give a shit) about film all that much. Those collectors who collect purely on (others) desirability.

[Louie D.]

While I don't have any posters which could be considered "rare" or "one of a kind", I have a few items which may fall into the "cool" section that you don't run across every day. Here is a special pass for author Maude Lathem to go a special preview screening of the Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell 1932 film, "The First Year" on the Fox lot.

[erik1925]

And then there are those who sometimes think that rare=valuable. Many examples have been given about one or 2 known copies of something that have not sold for much at all. So it's an interesting mix of factors that come into play.

As a collector, it can be fun to come across something that hasnt been seen before, especially, too, if the art speaks to you. Then, it's a win-win situation.

And that keeps us all in the hobby, whether it's about the cool or rarity factor (or any other 'factor,' for that matter).  

Cool piece there, Louie. hand typed and in fine condition, too! Looks great.

[Ari]

What is this thread about please?

Ok, it's about, some posters are considered rare, but they aren't, the supply is small compared to the demand, but say the pulp fiction poster everyone seems to want, or a matrix whatever, or ferris bueller international. They can't really be considered RARE, they should be called desirable, BUT they are "cool" (man I hate that term).
On the other hand genuinely rare posters can be bought right now,for next to nothing, because they are sought after for whatever reason (not a title or art or whatever people want)

So it's a response to the member and many in the past who is after specific titles and specific versions of the title and his comment that doesn't everyone want the rare versions (or something to that effect).

And I agree re Mel, I see that here a lot, never saw it on NSFGE or Style B or Mopo, or MPT either, but often here someone buys something and a lot then "need" it.

[eatbrie]

What is rare, Ari?  You say that Pulp Fiction, Ferris Bueller or Matrix (I'm assuming you mean the dreadful lightning poster) aren't rare. Bruce has sold the Pulp Fiction 10 times since 2010.  That's 2 a year.  Ferris Bueller's UK version, once since 2010.  Matrix lightning, twice since 2010.

So what's rare?

I think a lot of "rare" posters from the 50s and before can be purchased for very little money mostly because a lot of older movies do not interest new generations.  People with money would much rather buy a Ferris Bueller poster they can associate with than some obscure but extremely rare 40s poster.

T

[Ari]

Well I don't have a rule, but one seller with a couple a year doesn't seem rare to me, if it wasn't a collected poster, nobody would notice.
I wouldn't say a poster where even just 100 exist is rare, are Mondos rare? And modern posters as we know aren't printed low (except maybe those lenticulars).
For me it would be a couple or few known to exist. Or maybe better, if you want it this week, say the matrix poster, can you get it (forget price)?
Or if you want something, and you have to think, I'll try and find it in the next ten years.
If I wanted a matrix dreadful lightening, pulp fiction or ferris, it would be easy to get, you just email mopo, message here etc and offer a price around  highest sales price and someone would sell it.
On the flip side, I spent better than a decade looking for ANY paper on the film TO THE PUBLIC DANGER. only was one example of anything online, years of asking mopo, and other forums, nothing, except this one poster.
I now have it. So, if I asked the same, forget price, find me another poster for this film in a week, month, year, I have doubts anyone would be able to. (Like to be proven wrong)
And because it's not sought after, I could list it on eBay and probably get no bids.

And yes you are spot on about older films and their lesser desirability, I guess that's my point, it's not about rarity at all. But it's about a bigger demand than supply, then rarity is attached. SCARCE might be a better term for things that only come up a couple of times a year.

Anyway just thinking out loud really. And I don't mind if that's what people want, or how they collect, go for it, but I am trying to understand it.

[CSM]

People with money would much rather buy a Ferris Bueller poster they can associate with than some obscure but extremely rare 40s poster.

T

Huh?! 

[CSM]

Well I don't have a rule, but one seller with a couple a year doesn't seem rare to me, if it wasn't a collected poster, nobody would notice.
I wouldn't say a poster where even just 100 exist is rare, are Mondos rare? And modern posters as we know aren't printed low (except maybe those lenticulars).
For me it would be a couple or few known to exist. Or maybe better, if you want it this week, say the matrix poster, can you get it (forget price)?
Or if you want something, and you have to think, I'll try and find it in the next ten years.
If I wanted a matrix dreadful lightening, pulp fiction or ferris, it would be easy to get, you just email mopo, message here etc and offer a price around  highest sales price and someone would sell it.
On the flip side, I spent better than a decade looking for ANY paper on the film TO THE PUBLIC DANGER. only was one example of anything online, years of asking mopo, and other forums, nothing, except this one poster.
I now have it. So, if I asked the same, forget price, find me another poster for this film in a week, month, year, I have doubts anyone would be able to. (Like to be proven wrong)
And because it's not sought after, I could list it on eBay and probably get no bids.

And yes you are spot on about older films and their lesser desirability, I guess that's my point, it's not about rarity at all. But it's about a bigger demand than supply, then rarity is attached. SCARCE might be a better term for things that only come up a couple of times a year.

Anyway just thinking out loud really. And I don't mind if that's what people want, or how they collect, go for it, but I am trying to understand it.