Movie posters vs. movie art prints - which is the better investment?

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Fallen and I were having this discussion off-topic and I was interested in everybody's thoughts.  I contend that official movie posters in the medium to long term (5-20 years) are a better investment than movie art prints like Alamo produces because:

(1) Buyers want the real deal and movie posters have "official" status.  Movie art prints are simply derivatives of the "real thing."  

(2) They are not intended for sale to/by the public.

(3) They are printed in limited numbers and only a limited fraction get to public sale (primarily through Ebay it seems for first sale) in good condition (and we've all seen the dreaded "theater-used" movie posters).

(4)  Any Joe Blow can make a movie art print, although some do it well like Alamo.

(5) I believe it will be harder to resell today's art prints in the future.  Buyers will always want official Star Wars posters but will they want Alamo Star Wars art prints?

Of course, I'm primarily defending movie posters either with superb artistry (Pulp Fiction, Downhill Racer) or posters from extremely popular movies (Avatar).  I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill junk Photoshop montage posters.

How sayest you all? (I'll let Fallen speak for himself).

[stewart boyle]

Summed up nicely Mel. I agree 100%.

Stew

[guest8]

This will sound a little familiar to Mel .. But .... Id say the "Alamo like" Movie Posters made for official screenings are the safer bet though .. I mean how many new posters are created for theater use that are just overall worthless .. ?? probably 99.999% of them are nothing more than potential wrapping paper. Im not saying that they are not beautiful pieces that dont deserve to be collected but they are widely available via eBay and a large portion of buyers buy reprints and dont care about original or not (notice I said buyers not collectors) .. I mean who is that new member here on APF that has all of his posters dry mounted because its cheaper than framing .. He doesnt seem to care about value and shouldnt care about authenticity because hes trashing the ones he is buying, if I were him Id buy only the cheapest reprints possible .. Now there will always be collectors that want originals and the classics and as new collectors come onto the market they will want some of the worthless posters just for sentimental reasons and if there are enough of those buyers those worthless posters may increase in value ..

Now "Alamo Like" will most likely always sell at least at original sale price most will sell easily with a 30% markup and others just continue to grow in value .. No I will concede that Mondo is producing too much anymore and the Art Prints area and this may be killing off major returns down the road .. But thats why we have to keep an eye out for the little up and comers like cinemarat (whos had some awesome prints tied to official screenings).. He could be the next Alamo/Mondo like sensation and all these early prints could be worth crazy amounts someday .. But if not then they are cheap enough they can easily be sold to other movies enthusiast at cost so no ones really out any major bucks.

But I have a modest collection of wrapping paper (theater release posters) and if I tried selling them most wouldnt go anywhere or Id lose money .. Which isnt good or bad .. it just is .. I like what I have and one day I hope to rotate out some of the larger pieces I have laying around like Mel does, just not quite as many as him;)

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Here's an example.  I splurged for $250 for a VF+ "Downhill Racer."  I'm pretty sure I can resell that poster in a few years for that much and maybe more.

I could have shelled out $200 for a Stout quad (40x30) of "Let The Right One In." It's a well-crafted poster but IMHO there is no way in hell that will be worth $200 in 5 years.  It will be totally forgotten and you'll be lucky to get anything for it.

[guest8]

See thats not a good example to me .. Your comparing two different things .. an older poster that already has an established value to a brand new poster that will fluctuate in value before it finds its established value.. My argument compares new poster to new prints .. Like Iron Man 2, compare the value of the theatrical movie posters to that of the Alamo released prints .. I bet you could hit eBay and pick up all versions US and INTL of the IM2 one sheets for less than what just the regular edition Alamo print would sell for. I bet the same is true for the Let the right one in one sheets vs. the Stout print .. Or the new Let Me In on sheets vs. the Moss print ..

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I think anything less than $100 is not really an "investment" so perhaps we're debating two different subjects. Very few new movie posters sell for more than $25 when they hit Ebay.  I did shell out $25 for the outstanding Black Swan poster that just came out but I don't consider it an investment.  I think a better comparison is something like Stout's Big Lebowski.  Currently, it sells for $400+.  I doubt it will be worth that in five years.  A far more stable "investment" would be a Star Wars C, which also currently goes for $400.

[Cj]

Here's an example.  I splurged for $250 for a VF+ "Downhill Racer."  I'm pretty sure I can resell that poster in a few years for that much and maybe more.

I could have shelled out $200 for a Stout quad (40x30) of "Let The Right One In." It's a well-crafted poster but IMHO there is no way in hell that will be worth $200 in 5 years.  It will be totally forgotten and you'll be lucky to get anything for it.

Really Mel?? 5 years from now because it is Stout it will at least triple in price. Did we forget about The Thing, fetching $500.00 - $1000.00. Not bad for a print that was $30.00 two years ago.

Cj

[Cj]

 I think a better comparison is something like Stout's Big Lebowski.  Currently, it sells for $400+.  I doubt it will be worth that in five years.  A far more stable "investment" would be a Star Wars C, which also currently goes for $400.

I just sold my Stout GID Lebowski for $725.00 and I think it would be double in price 5 years from now

[guest8]

I think anything less than $100 is not really an "investment" so perhaps we're debating two different subjects. Very few new movie posters sell for more than $25 when they hit Ebay.  I did shell out $25 for the outstanding Black Swan poster that just came out but I don't consider it an investment.  I think a better comparison is something like Stout's Big Lebowski.  Currently, it sells for $400+.  I doubt it will be worth that in five years.  A far more stable "investment" would be a Star Wars C, which also currently goes for $400.

Well thats the thing .. most posters and prints will start off in the sub-$100 range and then go up for whatever reason .. If youre talking about spending $500 on a poster just to be able to turn around in 5 years and sell it for $500 still then Id say pick up a RR Goldfinger or any old Stout (Blade Runner/Lebowski) .. and youd be golden .. But youre talking about proven values as well .. Now i know too many times we ask how to know the good posters to scoop up early on in hopes of them becoming the next big thing and being worth $1k .. and people come back all zen like and say just collect what you love and dont think about the value but I think everyone thinks a little bit about what it may be worth in the future.. It may not be the key factor in deciding to buy but it is thought about.

So if your talking about buying as an investment then you should be buying $25-50 posters that you hope will increase in value .. Buying an already proven poster just below market value knowing you can maybe make your money back or turn a small profit in a few years is just taking the safe bet. Either way buying cheap hoping they skyrocket or buying the older classics knowing they will hold value is all investing .. Its just ones riskier than the other.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

If youre talking about spending $500 on a poster just to be able to turn around in 5 years and sell it for $500 still then Id say pick up a RR Goldfinger or any old Stout (Blade Runner/Lebowski) ..

See that's where we profoundly disagree.  Those movie art prints are not "golden" at all - they are extremely speculative.  The entire movie art print market could collapse like baseball cards did.  There's much less chance movie poster prices will collapse. At worst they will remain stagnant or lose value vs. inflation.

And CJ, if you truly believe that Lebowski would double in price in 5 years, why not hold on to it?

Here's another example:  Is anybody going to pay $1500 for this rare Red Goldfinger (only 10 made) five years from now.  Maybe but I think you'd be taking a huge chance:

[guest8]

Back to the original topic though .. What is more likely to be more valuable in 5 years .. A mass produced and copied Theatrical poster or a limited edition screen print .. ?? There's no sure bet either way .. many Alamo's would be lucky to sell at cost .. but there are a lot of others that just defy logic in how much they sell for especially compared to their theatrical counter parts .. Lets consider some of the lower end Alamo's like Monster Squad .. when the print run was so high and flippers flooded the market and made it hard to sell them at original costs.. But still a regular edition re-release Alamo screen print will sell for more than the theatrical one sheet for Monster Squad.

See that's where we profoundly disagree.  Those movie art prints are not "golden" at all - they are extremely speculative.  The entire movie art print market could collapse like baseball cards did.  There's much less chance movie poster prices will collapse. At worst they will remain stagnant or lose value vs. inflation.

And CJ, if you truly believe that Lebowski would double in price in 5 years, why not hold on to it?

I think all posters prints or theatrical are subjective .. How many times do we see joe schmo selling a hard to find poster and it goes for less than half of what someone like Dave or Bruce could get for it .. All of our pricing we base things on is sporadic at best.. even on Bruces site you will see some posters sell for hundreds one week then a month later maybe $50 .. Or like the Avatar posters .. Selling for $2-300 at times then crashing 6 months later .. Its the same for the Alamo prints as well .. early on the flippers are in heaven but after that they settle and find a more "true" market value .. and thats what Im talking about .. the the post craze values .. To me the Alamo like prints will typically be worth more in respect to original cost than the theatrical counter parts ..

[Cj]

I sold my GID Lebowski because I am putting the funds towards another purchase that I want now..not 5 years from now. I never bought the Lebowski as an "investment". Early on when I first started collecting, I purchased stuff that I thought would increase in value over time. That was before I knew any better. The reality of it is, there isn't any poster in my price range that I would consider an investment. To buy posters/artprints for investment purposes in my price range is down right foolish, IMHO. I buy what I like to collect not how much it will bring me 5 years from now. If you want to invest..someone said it already in many threads in the past -  go to the stock market or buy some property.

Cj

[supraman079]

I think if the artwork is good and captures the emotions of the movie that touches us as fans and collectors it doesn't matter if it is an original movie poster or a movie art print the demand will be there. I've seen better work on art prints sometimes and on the other hand I've seen better work on the original movie poster for some titles. Now if there are fewer art prints like a run of 50 verse a thousand or more movie posters demand vs. supply will play a factor. Just as if there are only 10 or so original movie posters from a small foreign country compared to a run of 50 art prints.

[guest8]

I think if the artwork is good and captures the emotions of the movie that touches us as fans and collectors it doesn't matter if it is an original movie poster or a movie art print the demand will be there. I've seen better work on art prints sometimes and on the other hand I've seen better work on the original movie poster for some titles. Now if there are fewer art prints like a run of 50 verse a thousand or more movie posters demand vs. supply will play a factor. Just as if there are only 10 or so original movie posters from a small foreign country compared to a run of 50 art prints.

That brings about a good point .. Supply and demand .. Ebay and poster dealers make it pretty easy to get a theatrical poster anymore and I think that is what hurts the value .. Because there are almost always more theatrical posters than there are limited edition prints .. Now Ive been giving examples for prints and how their value is most always higher than the theater posters .. One case against that is Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus! The Martin Ansin piece done for Alamo is beautiful and still sells for just above original cost (if not much more) .. But supply and demand rears its little head ..they are easier to get than my Lilly Cole Imaginarium poster which I have been offered A LOT !!!!!!! of money for .. But thats because mine is one of 3 that I know of, that made it into collectors hands .. Its so rare its almost comparable to a one-off .. and therefore it is more valuable than the Alamo counter part

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Maybe I should not have used the word "investment."  I don't really buy a poster for investment.  I don't ever plan to sell my best stuff.  However, I want reasonable reassurance it will not collapse in value and become wrapping paper.  So recently I've spent $400-$500 each on a few posters (like You Only Live Twice Style C, etc).  I'm very confident those will retain their value over the next five years.  

By contrast spending $500 on a Stout is extremely shaky looking at the 5+ year time frame because it ultimately is just a commercial print.

[CSM]

These art prints remind me of chase cards in the sports card hobby (which incidentally ruined the hobby in my opinion)

I would imagine most prints start off very hot due to limited amounts available and then cool except, possibly, for those of cult or similar films - i.e Star Wars, Bond, Blade Runner...

I would rather have an original movie poster in virtually every instance (although I CAN appreciate the art on some of these prints).

[Bruce]

Here's a problem with limited edition ANYTHINGS.

Say the edition is 500. Twenty years later there are usually 500 of them in collectors hands. Almost all are in mint condition. There are almost certainly fewer than 500 people who think it is worth a pretty price.

Say the print run of Action #1 was one million. No one thought it would be valuable, so 99.9% of them are read and tossed. A few survive in a basement or attic. A very few survive in pretty nice shape.

My general rule of thumb. Anything expected to be valuable from the day it is created almost NEVER is worth even the issue price 20 years later (of course there are rare exceptions). Anything NO ONE thinks will be valuable in the first few years of creation (think video posters) has a shot of being a rare and valuable collectible down the line.

But what do I know? I have only mostly made my living selling collectibles for 42 years!

Bruce

[ddilts399]

Here is my .02. These are ART prints with a movie subtext. Generally art prints sustain at least the release value historically and dependent upon the popularity of the artist, some of their early runs can appreciate in value.  Now, you should not be buying these if you hope to sell them off and buy a summer house on the lake someday.

Movie posters... all paper hobbys have had great collectibles runs where prices sky rocketed then collapsed and finally rebuilt into a decent field (sports cards are still trying to recover).

Posters have not collapsed yet...

[Bruce]

Those great collectible runs are caused by investor types running prices sky high, and those with real love all sell out, and then the investors try to cash in, and there's no one to sell to. Ask Rich about this!

Bruce

[eatbrie]

I think it all comes down to two things: Title and artist.  Alamo Drafthouse, Cinemarat, Overdrive... who cares.  Title and artist.  Some titles will pass the test of time, some will be completely forgotten.  Some artists have a real touch, some are like everyone else.  Some will grow, some will die.  But I truly believe that a great title by a great artist will always prevail.  Ansin's famous monsters, Stout The Thing, Blade Runner...  These themes and titles have already proved themselves, and I guarantee you the prices will not go down.  A lot of others will.  Unknown artists, lame titles...

Movie posters... titles only.  It is impossible today to know what movie from the past 20 years will become a classic.  Some are well known today, but our kids will find them dated and lame.  Others will always be cool.

Which is why I collect both.

T

[MoviePosterBid.com]

none of this crap is a good financial investment unless you are lucky.

It is however, a fantastic spiritual investment if you enjoy it, as I do

[guest8]

Another good example of Movie prints that will not appreciate in value is the lot Mondo has list to go on sale today .. Another load of poo if you ask me ..

[kovacs01]

agreed.  all of them suck.

[holiday]

The thing with limited art prints, like limited anything, is that if 30 or 50 or 100 or whatever are printed now, 50 years from now the same number will still be around.  Theatrical release posters, however, will dwindle over the years as they are destroyed in the regular course of business.  Some get caught up in collectors' hands, true, but even those dwindle as they are sold, lost, destroyed, or whatever.  The point is, a collectible print will always be protected from destruction and hence the numbers will not winnow over time as they will with regular posters.

[Dr Hackenbush]

Some get caught up in collectors' hands, true, but even those dwindle as they are sold, lost, destroyed, or whatever.  The point is, a collectible print will always be protected from destruction and hence the numbers will not winnow over time as they will with regular posters.

I don't agree with this statement, Holiday.  The same forces that destroy theatrical posters can and will destroy art prints.  Art prints have been around for hundreds of years (Rembrandt, Goya) and not all of them have survived.  Even prints from more recent artists like Warhol have gotten lost or damaged over the years.  Shit happens.  I will agree that because of the quality of the paper, modern art prints are little less likely to get torn/ripped as easily, but that's about it.  They get displayed just like theatrical posters, so anything that can go wrong in the framing process will affect them.  And given the fact that they're printed in odd sizes, many of them have a great chance of getting wrinkles, etc when being framed.