[HN Gopher] Original Superman comic becomes the highest-priced c...
___________________________________________________________________
Original Superman comic becomes the highest-priced comic book ever
sold
Author : 1659447091
Score : 308 points
Date : 2025-11-22 05:21 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| cm2012 wrote:
| The mother knew the potential value when she bought it,
| interestingly enough. Good for her!
| anovikov wrote:
| What's missing in the story is when did she buy it and how much
| she spent... Maybe it was an expensive purchase at that point
| already, like in 5 digits, and she invested a considerable
| portion of her savings?
| opello wrote:
| > Their mother had held on to the comic books since she and
| her brother bought them between the Great Depression and the
| beginning of World War Two, Heritage said.
|
| It seems unlikely that in that time frame it would have been
| a 5 digit purchase. It still may have been a significant
| proportion of liquid cash or net worth though. I think it'd
| be an interesting detail to have too.
| evanelias wrote:
| It came out in 1939, which is in that time frame, so she
| probably bought it at a newsstand for the 10 cent cover
| price. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there was any
| real second-hand market for comic books at the time.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| The ha.com press release that this summarizes makes it clear
| that the mother and uncle bought the comics for their own
| enjoyment then decided to pass them down to the sons once they
| knew the comics were valuable. It doesn't explicitly say they
| bought them on the news stand, but that's the impression I get.
| skeuomorphism wrote:
| A shame to hear that heritage auctions were the ones to handle
| this
| opdahl wrote:
| Why do you say that? I'm unfamiliar with Heritage Auctions.
| stevekemp wrote:
| Allegations they operated a pump and dump in conjunction with
| Wata games, a "grading" company.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Auctions#Controversie.
| ..
| charcircuit wrote:
| With this kind of case it's impossible to read the comic book,
| and it doesn't protect it from UV light. I prefer using covers
| that block UV light. This both protects it and allows you to read
| it.
| MomsAVoxell wrote:
| You can read it (illegally) here:
|
| https://www.zipcomic.com/superman-1939-issue-1
|
| And I dare say, someone spending 9 million clams on this comic
| book is more than likely going to have it sitting in a very UV-
| protected vault somewhere ..
|
| EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize that zipcomic.com is infringing
| the copyright - adding this note to point that out, but I will
| maintain my original link as intended. Better to read it on DC
| Universe Infinite, if you have access, or maybe it's available
| through Libby or Hoopla library apps.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Not everyone wants to break the law to read things from their
| collection. Also the physical experience of reading is much
| different than digital.
|
| While you could store your collectable in a vault, many
| people enjoy displaying their collectables.
| MomsAVoxell wrote:
| Sorry .. I didn't realize that zipcomic.com was illegal ..
| I'd assumed the copyright had expired[0], and checking on
| DC Universe Infinite isn't possible, since it's geolocked
| and I'm not in a country deemed worthy of it. It's probably
| available in Libby or Hoopla, legally.
|
| [0] It's still copyrighted, although it seems that will
| expire in a decade or so, though. I guess I'll read it
| then.
| iammattmurphy wrote:
| This might be genuinely the first time I can remember
| hearing someone say they don't want to commit piracy. No
| offence, but who cares? Especially for something from
| 1939.
| userbinator wrote:
| This comic is older than most (all?) HN users.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I mean, I care (though not for something whose creators
| are long since dead and whom you can't support any more).
| But in general, I certainly try to avoid piracy. I think
| it's immoral and while I don't think it makes one a bad
| person (I myself used to pirate a ton of stuff when I had
| no money to buy it), I do think it's a thing that a good
| person should strive to avoid.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Back up here:
|
| >"I care (though not for something whose creators are
| long since dead and whom you can't support any more)."
|
| >"I think it's immoral"
|
| King Herod makes the Kill Babies Act and now you consider
| it immoral not to kill babies?
|
| You justified copyright by suggesting it was about
| supporting creators. So you at least consider the moral
| justification to end at the creators death?
|
| It just really interests me how copyright terms which
| were grown purely to support corporations so they
| wouldn't have to be creative (read that as would but need
| to employ people, or pay people for creativity) can have
| people figuratively clutching pearls.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| At the time that it was published, it would've been
| public domain by 1995 (so its creators might reasonably
| be alive at expiration). Anyone would be able to legally
| reprint it. Was that immoral? Or was it immoral to
| monopolize culture for another 1-2 generations?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| It was a bad policy (immoral? your words) to
| "grandfather" everything in when the new law was passed.
| But I understand that wad the entire point (Disney) of
| that law.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, if issue #1 it were still being sold, that would be
| piracy.
| MomsAVoxell wrote:
| True, I guess if I'd spent 9 million buckaroonies on the
| original, I'd feel compelled to download the digital
| version .. from wherever .. and put the physical edition
| in an air-tight preservation vault, deep in some bank
| somewhere.
|
| But .. I just didn't want to encourage piracy among our
| community, is all.
| bouncycastle wrote:
| back in my day, we had these buildings called 'libraries'
| which were filled wall-to-wall with many different types
| of copyright material. Mainly books, but also comics,
| newspapers and magazines, that you could legally read and
| also borrow and take home for a few days, for FREE!!
| drob518 wrote:
| Now you're just making stuff up.
| MomsAVoxell wrote:
| Yeah, I still love to visit my local library, it is one
| of the most enlightening places in the city.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Stop! This is disgusting!
| sneak wrote:
| Not-for-profit copyright infringement on this scale is
| generally a tort and not a criminal act.
|
| It's a bit hyperbolic. It's a webpage of a comic book.
| clort wrote:
| I'm not sure the reader would be breaking the law.
| Copyright law is about distribution, so the site would be
| violating the copyright by making it available. However,
| reading it is not distribution so simply reading it would
| not be an issue.
| staticman2 wrote:
| When you click the link you co-distribute a copy to your
| own computer.
|
| If you were just passing by when a friend did it and read
| their computer screen I think you'd have a stronger
| argument.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yeah
|
| Until they pass away and somebody finds it then puts it for
| sale, and so on...
| muzani wrote:
| My impression was the comic was worth so much because the
| widely available digital version loses something.
| kristopolous wrote:
| I assume it's just an inflation robust store of value.
|
| If I was lucky enough to have to defend say a billion dollars
| from diluting over decades, a priceless comic sounds like a
| decent acquisition
| bbarnett wrote:
| I can't understand why the inside covers were scanned by
| someone, but at crazy low res. Yes the comic is important,
| but even the ads are fun and a memory blast.
|
| I have a feeling this was scanned a while back, where
| resolution was a balance between even being able to store it
| digitally due to size.
| anthk wrote:
| https://comicbookplus.com would have it legally as the
| Copyright expired long ago.
| Podrod wrote:
| What makes you think the copyright has expired?
| toyg wrote:
| Probably confused 2024 with 2034, when it will actually
| expire.
| evanelias wrote:
| It really doesn't make sense to read a 9.0 condition key comic
| like this. If you really wanted to read it, you would be better
| off buying a second reading copy in terrible condition.
|
| The cost of the reading copy would end up being less than the
| negative impact to the condition (and therefore value) of your
| mint copy from reading it a single time.
| xeonmc wrote:
| Makes me think of this Simpsons episode:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii4Msc9ESEw
| stavros wrote:
| Why did he do that?
| ileonichwiesz wrote:
| In that episode a bored Mr. Burns hires Homer as his
| ,,prank monkey", paying him with loose cash to play cruel
| pranks on others and humiliate himself. Homer eventually
| regains his dignity after refusing to ruin the
| Thanksgiving day parade, even for a million dollars.
| stavros wrote:
| Ahh thank you.
| Jach wrote:
| I was thinking of the "perma-mint condition" issue of
| Radioactive Man. Spilled drinks fly off harmlessly onto
| lesser comics:
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mqe21Up4Vmo&t=14s
| latexr wrote:
| Funny that the fictitious comic is spilling into a
| "lesser" real comic by Matt Groening (creator of the
| Simpsons).
| acomjean wrote:
| I thought you were going to share the one where Bart Martin
| and Milhouse team up to buy a rare "radioactive man". It
| goes badly
|
| https://youtu.be/zw220bx88WA?si=vArVS22Oac02uNK5
|
| I'd forgotten about prank monkey Homer.
| BubbleRings wrote:
| What a wild concept in this case:
|
| With a little effort and research someone could come up with
| a reasonable estimate that read something like, "a typical
| 15-year-old reading through this comic once in a typical way
| would have cost the family X dollars", and X might literally
| be $100k. Certainly well over $10k.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| A careless 15 year old would take off millions from the
| value.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| You're better off just getting UV protective film on your
| windows.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I wonder if that significantly changes your vitamin D
| production?
| meindnoch wrote:
| No.
| dbacar wrote:
| "He added: "This isn't simply a story about old paper and ink.
| This was never just about a collectible.
|
| "This is a testament to memory, family and the unexpected ways
| the past finds its way back to us." """ Men going extreme in
| sentimental when they just sold a $9M collectible :).
| sebmellen wrote:
| He added: "This isn't simply a blurb of words and phrases. This
| is not just a stock statement from an LLM.
|
| This is a testament to outsourcing, laziness and the unexpected
| ways technology finds ways to change every press release."
| mvkel wrote:
| All it needed was the emdash
| ccppurcell wrote:
| Why this matters: <bullet point list>.
| ares623 wrote:
| And here's the kicker:
| latentsea wrote:
| Here's why this works:
| imiric wrote:
| You're absolutely right!
| mjlee wrote:
| I've been pressing minus twice to type a dash on Mac OS for
| so long I've forgotten when I started. People are pointing
| it out to me more and more every day. I think my writing is
| distinct enough from an LLM for most people, but there's
| certainly a growing contingent that sees a telltale and
| assumes everything must be AI generated.
|
| Most (all?) keyboards I've used only have a combined
| hyphen-minus key (-) which is distinct from a dash (--) and
| isn't quite a hyphen (-), so I get why most people don't
| care. All font dependent as well to add to the fun, and my
| examples here render differently in the textbox and the
| comment!
| plufz wrote:
| Yeah it actually saddens me a little, if using good and
| correct typography will be avoided because of LLM.
| Xss3 wrote:
| Em dashes are still appropriate for articles, journals,
| scientific papers, and other academic or professional
| writing.
|
| In social media comments they came across as pompous even
| before LLMs and werent particularly appropriate for
| casual comments.
|
| Though to be fair some people enjoy coming across as
| pompous and embrace the 'better than the peasants and
| their lowly minus sign use' attitude. Makes them feel
| special or as if their writing is markedly better than
| those without fancy punctuation. (It isnt).
|
| Also yes, im describing two writers i know that are
| adamant about the em dash being 'a sign of an
| intellectual wtiter'...they are insufferable pricks.
| sgarland wrote:
| I use em dashes for the same reason that I use
| semicolons: it's how I'm hearing the sentence in my head
| as I'm typing it.
|
| I think it's a bit of a stretch to call a part of grammar
| pompous. It'd be analogous with me calling your post lazy
| due to its various typos -- I'm not, I just found the
| comparison apt.
| zetanor wrote:
| I would love to know what sequence of characters you
| normally use in place of an em-dash to express the same
| nuance of relationship and timing.
| aeonik wrote:
| Not the GP, but I often just use commas and parenthetical
| asides (like this).
|
| It's a different stylistic choice (em dashes are nice and
| all), but it's not how I think, and my writing reflects
| how I think.
|
| I also will often use the fabled semicolon. It's easy to
| use with contrasting statements, but that's not its only
| use; I can use them in some situations to elaborate where
| em dashes are used.
|
| I'm not saying they are a perfect replacement for em
| dashes (again, em dashes are cool), but it's just always
| been my personal style.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > I also will often use the fabled semicolon
|
| I regularly use the semicolon, especially in a sentence
| where this are commas use in another way. In my mind, a
| semicolon is a "greater" separator than a comma; used to
| separate parts of thought in the same sentence (vs
| grouping of items or a pause).
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| The problem to me doesn't seem to be the em dashes but
| rather the multiple people around you that actively talk
| about "being an intellectual writer" and how they need to
| signal it with their choice of punctuation. Frankly they
| sound ridiculous. But again, that has nothing to do with
| the actual punctuation itself. Writing off a writing tool
| because of two people you agree are ridiculous doesn't
| seem like the right way to respond to their behavior.
|
| I've used it for literally decades for both formal and
| informal writing. On social media and in text messages.
| It is a very useful way to communicate/pace your
| sentences.
| pardon_me wrote:
| It's already happened unfortunately. LLMs learned to
| write correctly from people who write correctly. Those
| people are now being blamed for sounding like AI, when AI
| actually sounds like them (and probably learned from
| their work without permission). To avoid they, they write
| differently.
| boringg wrote:
| Ive had to change how i write so that people don't think
| its chat bot. Probably more a me thing but it has sadly
| ruined my heavy use of m dash and personal style. Small
| minority i know.
| adi_kurian wrote:
| I wouldn't bother. Who gives a flying fuck. The only
| people I know talking about it aren't particularly good
| at writing anyway.
| acheron wrote:
| "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
| agravier wrote:
| I've been using it as well for a long while (though using
| option shift -), but I don't care what people think. I
| won't change my style to appease Temu Sherlocks, or
| anyone really. How I write doesn't change the value of
| the message. I invite you to join me in not giving a
| crap.
| mjlee wrote:
| It wasn't clear from my comment, but I absolutely don't
| care and I'm going to keep typing how I type.
| Macha wrote:
| I'd actually just figured out the compose binding to type
| it on Linux just before chatgpt got popular
| mvkel wrote:
| If people only fixate on your emdashes, they're just
| lazy. The bigger AI smell to me is the "it's not X --
| it's Y," of which the emdash is a part.
| mr_toad wrote:
| They're using a crude linear model to identify AI output,
| which is not that much different from that which the AI
| safety industry is peddling, or the people that sell
| solutions to identify AI output.
|
| You can't reliably predict the output of a non-linear
| model with a simple linear model, no matter how hard you
| wish it.
| mvkel wrote:
| Perfectly said. The safety industry is such a grift,
| propped up by ignorant VCs who don't want to miss their
| rocket ship
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| gotta add those "values" so the bidder got worth its money
| tacker2000 wrote:
| Yea, would he have said the same for some old worthless TV
| program magazine?
| ls-a wrote:
| Did Silicon Valley VCs give that comic its valuation?
| latexr wrote:
| Reminded me of an exchange I saw decades ago in some TV show or
| movie (I forget where it was from but it stayed with me):
|
| Person A: "We're going to be so rich."
|
| Person B: "How many times do I have to tell you? It's not about
| the money."
|
| Person A: "It's about all the things we'll be able to buy with
| it."
|
| Person B: "Exactly."
| onionisafruit wrote:
| The Jerk?
| latexr wrote:
| Could be. I honestly have zero idea. I don't even recall
| the people or the setting, just the exchange.
| retSava wrote:
| Also, from a classic that is finally getting a sequel:
| Spaceballs!
|
| -We're not doing this for the money... -... we're not? -We're
| doing this for a SHITTON of money!
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Made me want to vomit
| onionisafruit wrote:
| To them I'm sure it really is all that plus the $9M they get,
| but mostly the $9M.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| Found a bit more on the story behind this copy
|
| https://www.ha.com/heritage-auctions-press-releases-and-news...
| HelloUsername wrote:
| Funny how the time of day affects the visibility of posting on
| HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46002609 :)
| swores wrote:
| Time of day definitely plays a part, but there's also
| luck/randomness to it.
|
| Even the same time and same day of the week there will never
| be exactly the same set of users online, and that's even more
| true with regard to the users who are choosing to look at
| HN's /newest page. So pure luck can determine whether a bunch
| of comic book lovers see it soon after submission and give it
| enough votes to get on HN's front page, or just a bunch of
| people who think it's a boring story worth ignoring.
|
| (Personally I thought it sounded like it might have
| interesting comments worth reading, hence my being here, but
| I wouldn't have found it interesting enough to upvote if I
| were one of the people who saw it on the new submissions
| page.)
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I strongly suspect that a number of HN members have been
| training LLMs on HN headlines, then using these LLMs to
| recommend stories and times for submission. Maybe they have
| even set up the scripts to post submissions automatically.
|
| That's how we roll.
|
| The results are likely to be that _all_ HN front page stories
| will eventually be LLM-sourced.
|
| I'm not entirely against that, if the scripts do a good job
| of selecting stories.
| krapp wrote:
| Hacker News is for _human beings_ to share stories _they
| find interesting_ so that _other human beings_ can discuss
| those stories to gratify their intellectual curiosity.
| Automating that process with the goal of maximizing
| visibility and karma defeats the intended goal of the
| forum.
|
| Not the actual goal, of course the _actual_ goal of Hacker
| News for many people is gaming SEO and startup juice.
|
| That said, I don't doubt for a second you're right. Trust a
| forum of tech bros and nerds to minmax away what little joy
| there is left to posting here.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Sadly, I agree.
|
| I find most of the value, here, in the community
| commentary, though.
|
| It's fairly remarkable.
|
| I do think people are trying to LLM that, as well, but
| not as successfully.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| The actual actual goal is to promote Ycombinator to make
| money for pg.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I don't think it's that simple. It's my opinion that YC
| doesn't need much buzz, except within this very
| community. Since they own the venue, they get the
| benefit.
|
| I think that a goal is to "cultivate" a startup
| community. Get nerds and tech bros together, and some
| synergy is bound to happen.
|
| I'm not trying to start anything up, but I do enjoy the
| community. I'm not really what YC is looking for, but I
| suspect they like me, more than an LLM.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > Funny how the time of day affects the visibility of posting
|
| I have had that happen multiple times as well, but those are
| usually the ones I posted because I am interested in the
| thoughtful/knowledgeable comments that happen -- so it works
| out either way. I assume it's because my main source being
| BBC -- even though the website has a good variety of
| interesting (non-headline news) content that is well
| sourced/linked -- but also because I usually end up posting
| during odd/off-hours for US central. Think most of the ones I
| post that gain any traction had ended up in the 2nd chance
| pool.
|
| This one was a bit of an anomaly for me on how quickly it
| picked up -- personally thought the one I posted before it
| was a little more interesting about Rolls-Royce finding ways
| to limit sand/dust from damaging jet-engines, but this here
| is Superman after all
| pton_xd wrote:
| What are the odds it's a forgery? Couldn't find any details on
| their grading method and how it was "positively identified to
| originate from the first print run of the issue" [0].
|
| [0] https://www.ha.com/heritage-auctions-press-releases-and-
| news...
| evanelias wrote:
| Definitely not. It's CGC graded, and you can bet only their top
| graders would be involved.
| https://www.cgccomics.com/news/article/14678/superman-herita...
| iced_beverage wrote:
| For how they could tell it was from the first run, it says in
| the article you referenced:
|
| > For decades, Allen says, nobody knew of a way to distinguish
| which copies came from that initial run. Then a grader noticed
| a key difference in a small in-house promotional spot
| advertising the upcoming Action Comics No. 14. In the first
| run, those ads included text reading "On sale June 2nd."
| Subsequent print runs had updated it to "Now on sale."
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| its insane that quality is still that good, I have a comic book
| that already "rotten" despite have newer age
| Maxion wrote:
| The photo (scan?) of it looks like it could've been printed
| yesterday. Quite amazing that it's survived in such good
| quality.
| johngossman wrote:
| I have a b&w photo of my (considerably) older brother, from the
| early 1960s, reading a pile of comic books a foot high. The only
| cover visible is Spiderman #4. When I was a kid I used to stare
| at that picture and dream.
|
| Needless to say, I kept all _my_ old comics.
| technothrasher wrote:
| I had a British edition of Star Wars #1 at my parent's house
| that an English friend gave me when we were kids back in the
| early 80's. I always wondered what it was worth, as I could
| only find price guides for the US edition. But when I finally
| got around to go get it a couple years ago, it was nowhere to
| be found. So the question became only academic.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I kept all my old comics too, and check the value occasionally
| on eBay. Most valuable one has yet to top $40.
|
| Turns out a lot of 80s kids had the same idea!
| Libidinalecon wrote:
| I use to collect baseball cards as a kid in the 80s and I can
| remember I would see comics at card shows.
|
| I had seen football cards take off in value and really wanted
| to get into comic collecting. What I remember is the big comic
| books were just slightly outside the price range of a 10 year
| old cutting the lawn. Unlike baseball cards that cost thousands
| for HOF rookie cards.
|
| I don't know how accurate it is but chatGPT gives prices that
| sound about right from what I remember looking at comic price
| guides in the 80s.
|
| X-Men #1 $60-$150
|
| The Incredible Hulk #1 $60-$120
|
| Avengers #1 $80-$180
|
| I never got to start my collection then I remember as a
| teenager thinking what a stupid idea it was anyway. Who the
| hell is ever going to be that into comic book characters?
| muzani wrote:
| Does anyone know why this particular issue is so valuable? I'm
| assuming it's some mix of investment, timing, sentimental value,
| and rarity. But which ones particularly?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| An earlier submission of the auction house source had some
| details like it's one of only seven copies that have a grading
| score over 6.0 (it scored a record 9.0), and one of only 100
| ever of any quality ever auctioned there.
| Zenbit_UX wrote:
| Your question is why is issue #1 of a very old and popular
| thing valuable?
| muzani wrote:
| I get that it's more valuable than Superman #200, but why 9
| million dollars valuable. There's a poorer quality one at 5
| million, but that also means that there's other copies in
| existence.
|
| It's also not the first Superman comic, what about Action
| Comics #1?
|
| Why is the Call of Cthulhu (Weird Tales, Feb 1928) about
| $50k?
|
| Or in terms of characters, what makes Superman worth 3x more
| than MARVEL #1 or Batman?
| evanelias wrote:
| It's a combination of importance and condition.
|
| Superman was arguably the first super-hero, and certainly
| the first successful/popular one. And Superman #1 is the
| first time a super-hero got their own dedicated comic book.
| It has long been generally considered the third-most
| desirable comic book issue in existence, after Action
| Comics #1 (first appearance of Superman) and Detective
| Comics #27 (first appearance of Batman).
|
| This copy of Superman #1 was graded as a 9.0, which
| basically means it's like-new, despite being 86 years old.
| And it's naturally in that condition without ever
| undergoing restoration, which affects the value. Of all
| known unrestored copies of Superman #1, this copy is in the
| best condition.
|
| That said, there are at least three known comic book copies
| that would be valued more highly: two known unrestored 9.0
| copies of Action Comics #1, and one known unrestored 9.2
| copy of Detective Comics #27. If any of those were to be
| sold at auction today, their value would almost certainly
| be a lot higher than $9 million, in part due to this
| Superman #1 auction setting a recent precedent.
| daseiner1 wrote:
| the article explicitly states that this original Superman #1 is
| the highest graded copy of all-time
|
| it's valuable for the same reason the mona lisa is valuable.
| it's iconic, it is a singular object, it is one of a kind, it
| is a stable investment vehicle. they ain't making more of them.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > they ain't making more of them.
|
| I always wonder exactly how difficult it would be to get the
| paper, ink, staples, etc exactly right. I'm sure it would be
| difficult but 9m is a big payoff if you can.
| ileonichwiesz wrote:
| If you're going to get into forgery of historical
| memorabilia there's probably easier targets than Superman
| comic books, no?
| rootlocus wrote:
| I assume the content isn't as important as the fact the
| object itself is the original. Original paper, original
| ink, original release date. The object itself comes from
| the original factory, survived through time etc. I would
| expect some tests will verify it uses the correct paper,
| has the signs of age, etc.
|
| Even if you could duplicate it down to the molecule I would
| assume it wouldn't hold the same value since it doesn't
| have the same history. Assuming you'd want to sell it in
| good faith as a replica.
| nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote:
| Stable investment vehicle I am not so sure. I think an index
| fund or even gold will outperform it over 100 years. Superman
| comics rely on people giving a shit about superman which will
| fade over time. Superman isnt a big thing for gen z for
| example.
| bazoom42 wrote:
| Who knows, but some comic books characters like Batman and
| Spider-man are bigger that ever, while others like Tarzan
| is losing relevance.
| larusso wrote:
| It is interesting to me that something like this can have such a
| high value. It speaks meanly for the our shared cultural global
| connection when it comes to items like these. For what purpose
| other than saying: "I have a ..." would you buy this? Or is it
| the believe the price only goes up and it gets bought as an
| investment? I mean specifically this item with this high price. I
| ask because I think the price is only as high if the item in
| question is still cultural relevant. So I assume you buy it and
| start shadow produce new Superman projects :)
| onion2k wrote:
| _I ask because I think the price is only as high if the item in
| question is still cultural relevant._
|
| Les Poseuses Ensemble by Georges Seurat was sold for $149m.
| Very few people have heard of it, care about it, or even like
| it considering it's pointillism which _no one_ buys modern
| versions of. The world of art and collectables is entirely rich
| people speculating that the price (not value) will go up in the
| future.
| larusso wrote:
| Ah damn. I forgot to add in the whole world of art collection
| which of course this item belongs in as well. Still baffles
| me how we humans can put such high prices on some items
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| It's mostly money laundering and loan collateral
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I thought it was bragging rights for the terminally
| insecure billionaire class.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| They get stored in warehouses. No one sees most of this
| art
| saretup wrote:
| Don't forget the tax savings.
| stavros wrote:
| What tax savings? How does that work?
| saretup wrote:
| Different tax loopholes depending on region etc, but
| basically like this:
|
| I'm a billionaire earning $100M this year.
|
| I owe $40M as taxes for that. (Too much!)
|
| I find a dumb banana painting by a starving artist.
|
| I buy it from him for $1000.
|
| I wait 6 months.
|
| I go to a museum to get it appraised by "professionals".
|
| I pay the professional appraiser's wife $50K as a gift.
|
| The appraiser says the painting is now worth $30M!
|
| Wow that's awesome, I have such a keen eye for art.
|
| You know what, I'm gonna donate this painting to a museum
| instead because I'm such a patron of art and culture.
|
| Oh, look at that, I get a tax rebate for the value of my
| donated painting ($30M)
|
| Now I only have to pay $40M - $30M = $10M in taxes on my
| $100M income.
|
| There's more nuance to it in practice, but that's the
| gist of it.
|
| -----
|
| Edit: For some reason I can't reply to the comments below
| so I'm gonna do it here.
|
| > That wouldn't explain the price here, since in your
| scam the whole idea is to buy cheap and donate dear. not
| buy for 139M
|
| Now we're getting in the details but it's very suspicious
| for an appraiser to appraise a work of art from an
| unknown artist at millions. But it's not that suspicious
| if they take Van Gogh's Starry Night which was previously
| appraised at $500M to now be valued at $1B. this way the
| deca-billionaire still gets to save his taxes while
| appraiser avoids suspicion.
|
| > As far as I know, that's not how taxes work. You can't
| get a rebate for the amount of taxes you would have paid,
| you can get a deduction for the amount of money you made.
|
| There are a lot of loopholes in the complicated tax
| system for the ultra-wealthy, not for us. This video
| (still a simple explanation in an animated way) covers a
| few more of them:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHy07B-UHkE
| stavros wrote:
| As far as I know, that's not how taxes work. You can't
| get a rebate for the amount of taxes you _would have_
| paid, you can get a deduction for the amount of money you
| made.
|
| So:
|
| You made $100M owe $40M in taxes.
|
| Your painting is worth $30M! You have such a keen eye for
| art.
|
| Now you made $130M and owe $50M in taxes.
|
| You donate the painting, you're back at having made $100M
| and owing $40M.
|
| Otherwise we'd all choose not to pay tax and donate our
| tax money to charitable institutions instead.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'm pretty sure he's right in how taxes work. There's no
| moment where the value of the painting is realized but
| you are allowed to deduct the FMV if you make enough and
| if the donation goes to the charity's exempt use (which
| it will if it's a museum or whatever).
|
| So if you buy painting for a dollar and wait a year then
| next year you make $3m and the painting is now worth $1m
| then if you donate it, your AGI is reduced to
| $3m-min($1m, 30% of income) = $3m-$900k.
|
| You don't count the appreciation of the painting as
| income. You don't even count it as LTCG if you don't sell
| it.
|
| I think it also applies to stock option awards. When the
| startup I was at was acquired some people were talking
| about it.
| __s wrote:
| There was a subtle mistake: the 30M would be deducted
| from taxable income (in Canada I was only able to deduct
| from capital gains)
| namdnay wrote:
| That wouldn't explain the price here, since in your scam
| the whole idea is to buy cheap and donate dear. not buy
| for 139M
| bazoom42 wrote:
| Your scheme involves getting a fake appraisal for a value
| higher than the market price. But this does not explain
| high prices at an auction.
| larusso wrote:
| This item didn't get sold yet or? It's says it's valued
| at 9million. So somebody gave it that number.
| bazoom42 wrote:
| > Now it has become the highest-priced comic book ever
| sold, fetching $9.12m (PS7m) at auction.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Yes, there are lots of "loopholes" available if you are
| willing to commit tax fraud! But that's something anyone
| can do, it's not particularly harder to lie about the
| value of charitable donations if you're not ultra-
| wealthy.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Loopholes are by definition legal.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Bribing an appraiser to get a larger deduction on a
| donation is cut-and-dried tax fraud. It's not a
| "loophole".
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Correct. Fraud is fraud, loopholes are loopholes. One is
| legal, the other is not.
|
| Or put another way - a loophole in law/regulations is
| found, then the law/regulation gets changed to close the
| loophole. If it were not legal this change would not be
| necessary - you would just prosecute.
| stonecharioteer wrote:
| Dunno why I can't reply to your other comment explaining
| what you mean but hot damn. False evaluation of a cheap
| painting to save on taxes? That's mental.
| squigz wrote:
| Surely some of it is also the simple fact of... these people
| are very rich and want some art they enjoy.
|
| The same way a regular person might buy an autographed photo
| of a celebrity they like or something like that.
| zakki wrote:
| I would say something like this is an analog version of
| nowadays crypto currency.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Analogue NFT
| Lerc wrote:
| It is, but only for thing people would legitimately like to
| have.
|
| The entire NFT thing would work if it were restricted to
| things people want, even if that only amounts to bragging
| rights.
|
| Somewhere along the way people lost track of the fact that
| being able to trade something doesn't denote value in itself
| _puk wrote:
| "only for thing people would legitimately like to have."
|
| Whilst that may be true for the most part, much of the art
| dealt nowadays is never displayed, just stored somewhere
| incredibly tax efficient until it's value has gone up
| enough to warrant selling.
|
| https://theswisstimes.ch/unlocking-the-secrets-of-the-
| geneva...
| Lerc wrote:
| In that respect I suspect it is much the same as bored
| apes. The price can go up while there are people with
| funds to put into things they don't care about. When the
| time comes that they have less money than the cost of
| things important to them, the 'value' can swiftly
| evaporate.
| scotty79 wrote:
| The price is determined by the depths of pockets of buyers.
| High price for such items means only that too many stupid
| people have too much money in our time.
| ls-a wrote:
| Really? After all the bogus valuations on HN, this one
| surprised you
| amelius wrote:
| It's valuable because we know with high certainty that it
| wasn't created using GenAI.
| klipklop wrote:
| I can hear Nic Cage get out his credit card from 1000 miles away
| to buy it.
| Galanwe wrote:
| I know nothing of this world of comics, I guess because it is
| essentially part of the US culture and did not penetrate much of
| Europe.
|
| There has been a number of investigative shows arguing the
| valuation of collectibles in general (comics included) is largely
| driven by money laundering.
|
| Is it some kind of conspiracy theory of is this legit ?
| WalterBright wrote:
| I remember as a kid that Superman #1 was going for thousands of
| dollars and we just oohed and aahed.
| Podrod wrote:
| As usual, generalising all of Europe based on your individual
| country is a mistake as there are some Euro counties where
| comics are quite popular. France, Belgium, Italy and the UK all
| have thriving native comic book industries, and I have Swedish
| friends who tell me Donald Duck comics are very popular there.
|
| I imagine a pristine 1st edition Tintin or Asterix would be
| quite valuable.
| Galanwe wrote:
| I wouldn't say comics are really popular in France. But we
| may have different interpretations of what comics are, as I
| don't consider "bandes dessinees" (e.g. Tintin) as comics.
| dragandj wrote:
| As an avid reader of BDs, I would agree with you, but for
| the purpose of this discussion, and for the general public,
| these two are indistinguishable. Even to the actual
| translation, which is (pardon my rusty French) somewhere in
| the ballpark of "cartoon strips".
| jccalhoun wrote:
| For this, it is pretty legit since it is old. What is thought
| to be driven by money laundering is people paying crazy amounts
| of money for graded VHS movies or NES games.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I remember a painting was discovered, and there was speculation
| that it was a da Vinci. It was appraised at $30,000. If it could
| be proven to be a da Vinci, it would be worth a million.
|
| For the same item.
|
| Crazy.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Let's say that I gift you a suitcase with ten thousand $100
| bills that seem legit, but you're not sure. How much would you
| be willing to pay for a proof that they are indeed legit?
| WalterBright wrote:
| It's a crime to pass counterfeit money. I'm not interested in
| that kind of trouble.
|
| Besides, I don't need to pay to test for it being legit. Just
| go to a bank.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Do you think a sculpture by a pre-civilization human is worth
| more than something banged out yesterday?
|
| Heritage has great value. It is one of the few things that
| cannot be manufactured at will.
|
| Also, since its uniqueness holds its value, its value becomes a
| "strange attractor". You can put a lot of money into one of
| these artifacts, fairly sure to get most or more back. Since
| future buyers will have a similar assurance. So it isn't money
| thrown away, but money stored in a medium the provides
| satisfaction and pride.
|
| Not so different from buying real estate in some exclusive area
| for some crazy price. It really isn't that crazy if you are
| likely to get your money back later if you want. Likely at a
| higher amount due to a growing economy pushing prices up.
|
| Crazy would be spending millions on something unique then
| grinding it up.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| Art as a tool for storing Mana:
| https://medium.com/luminasticity/art-as-a-tool-for-
| storing-m...
| neuronic wrote:
| This is all a great way of describing why art works as a
| money laundering or tax evasion scheme.
| Maxatar wrote:
| Can you elaborate further on the tax evasion part? The
| money laundering part I can see since the value of art is
| subjective and volatile, but how does what OP said explain
| how art can be used for tax evasion?
| itronitron wrote:
| The artwork is then given to a museum as a charitable
| donation for a tax write-off, or so the story goes.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I've seen a lot of ancient art in museums. I have simply no
| desire to spend $$$ acquiring them simply because they are
| old.
|
| I did buy some concrete gargoyles created by a local artist,
| probably a replica of one from a European church. I mounted
| them on the driveway entrance to scare away unwanted
| visitors.
| andrepd wrote:
| Maybe not the one you're thinking, but this is notable recent
| case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo)
|
| The attribution to Leonardo is _extremely_ dubious, but the
| whole thing seems to have been motivated as yet another attempt
| to wash the reputation of oil theocracies and their monarchs.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| Imagine some rich asshat at a pretentious cocktail party going
|
| "I have a da Vinci at home."
|
| Vs
|
| (pointing at a picture on the phone) "I have this painting at
| home"
|
| Which one impresses the other rich asshats more? Maybe even
| millions of dollars worth more.
| mr_toad wrote:
| Perhaps not the best example, da Vinci was prolific, and you
| can easily pick up something of his for under $3k.
| garbthetill wrote:
| The salvator mundi was bought at an auction for $1.2k, restored
| & appraised, then eventually sold for $450 million. The
| art/collection world is fascinate everything latches onto
| experts putting their reputation on the line, precious metals
| and gem stones make way more sense to me as their authenticity
| is undeniable for now
| Intermernet wrote:
| Weirdly enough, precious metals and gem stones are only
| valuable because we agree they are. It's exactly the same as
| art, but with a lot less debate.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Same thing with time ...
| shbooms wrote:
| this is true a lot in the world of paintings. there are
| regularly auctions where you can buy items "attributed" to
| (meaning it's speculated but not confirmed) very famous Modern
| Art painters like Van Gogh, Monet, etc for under $5,000 which,
| if confirmed, would send the valuation many multiples higher
| dahart wrote:
| Is it crazy? Clearly the value is the proof itself, not the
| item, right? Certainly a genuine da Vinci is an investment you
| can very likely recoup and make a profit on. If I could buy one
| that's proven, for a million, and I had a million sitting
| around, I would. That would be a smart move. The $30k non da
| Vinci, who knows, could be everything from love of art and
| total loss to perhaps a small profit. It depends on how good
| the remainder of the story is. Even for today's working
| artists, the narrative is most often the important & valuable
| part, and the item is just a pretty artifact that backs up the
| story. For expensive collectible investment art, the importance
| of the narrative goes way up.
|
| It's interesting if you were thinking of the Salvator Mundi
| since the discrepancy between the initial appraisal and the
| restored sale price is _two thousand times larger_ than your
| example. And it still goes to show the seemingly insane sale
| price was a good investment, first being sold for $80M by
| someone who knew he'd make a profit, then after that $120M,
| then $450M.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| > Certainly a genuine da Vinci is an investment you can very
| likely recoup and make a profit on.
|
| I.e. it's worth money because it's worth money.
| dahart wrote:
| Hehe, I like it. Yeah that's a valid, if funny and
| tautological way to summarize it. I am arguing that the
| monetary value comes from the story attached something
| that's unique, historical, famous, etc. The artifact itself
| didn't change value when it was proven to be a da Vinci, a
| new and very valuable story was attached to it. Without the
| story/proof it really is worth less.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Yes but there has to be some kind of self-reinforcing
| circularity to the value of that story, or the price of a
| da Vinci would be roughly inflationary or even under it
| and therefore not a good investment. Da Vinci's story
| isn't substantially changing (and doesn't even have a
| bunch of aging, rich, nostalgic people at exactly the
| right age-wealth point relative to the material in
| question to drive prices like Superman) and there are
| only more famous people over time, so the percentage of
| all famous pointings taken by da Vinci will decrease.
| There are no new practical uses for paintings being
| discovered. While the older the work gets the more it is
| worth, it's 500 years old already, so even an extra 50
| years is only a small increase in its relative
| historicity (0.2% per year, so well under the region of
| inflation)
| dahart wrote:
| Sure the claim that an artifact like a painting is
| valuable because it's rare & famous is somewhat self-
| reinforcing, I agree. I also think it's fair to call it
| circular in the sense that people investing and making a
| profit when they re-sell will cause more people to want
| to invest, and will drive the prices of collectibles
| higher. The value of a collectible is a social construct
| rather than a reflection of, say, skill or materials or
| cost to make, and so normal economics doesn't really
| apply.
|
| I'm not quite following the rest of your logic. Rare
| collectibles don't often lose value after 70 years,
| there's no reason I know of to suspect the 'age-wealth
| point' of the collector is particularly relevant. I've
| never heard of historicity nor seen anything collectible
| accrue value as a percentage of age, I don't think
| markets for rare paintings work like that...? The idea of
| paying millions and millions for a collectible you can't
| really use is foreign to most of us, so yeah it's really
| weird and I can understand the feeling that it must be
| self-reinforcing.
|
| I guess I'm maybe not even arguing for or against any of
| this, but maybe saying that given that markets for rare
| things exist, it does make sense that very rare+famous
| things bring higher prices, and that people who have
| money for this kind of speculation might see investment
| opportunity. I agree the "value" and market for these
| things is circular. All of the value comes from the
| "proof" that something is rare and collectible, purely
| from the story.
|
| All this does apply a little bit to consumer goods, of
| course. We often have to remind ourselves that capitalist
| markets price things according to supply and demand, not
| necessarily to cost.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| > there's no reason I know of to suspect the 'age-wealth
| point' of the collector is particularly relevant.
|
| All I mean is I think there's a bump around the time
| something particularly nostalgic intersects enough of the
| nostalgia-havers getting rich enough to bootstrap somes
| things into valuable-because-valuable territory. Comics,
| movies, etc. You could explain some of this Superman
| price that way, but you can't explain a recent increase
| in da Vincis, for example. I suspect quite at lot of 5/6
| figure comic book sales that then bump the magic-number
| editions into the millions are buoyed by people who have
| done fondness for comics they had as children.
|
| On the other hand, I think that eventually "the story" is
| merely an excuse for the price and whatever it is just
| valuable for the sake of being a member of a class of
| items that are demonstrably unique, irreplaceable and
| that can have particularly useful properties as a store
| of immense value. I really doubt that an Saudi prince
| dropping half a billion on a da Vinci, probably fronting
| for MBS, _really_ gives a hoot about da Vinci 's "story"
| at all other then his name underpins a really
| advantageous wealth store. I also doubt anyone else who
| might pay that and support the price does either.
|
| There's an established, global industry based around
| curating what does and doesn't "count" for these
| purposes. NFTs obviously have massive parallels with
| paintings and comic editions in terms of provable
| uniqueness, attestable sale prices and clear ownership,
| but failed to convince the curators and break into the
| stratospheric market where it actually makes sense to
| assign value-due-to-value. Perhaps partly because proving
| the above points isn't a fully public process, but it's
| itself carefully gated by physical access and social
| connections.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I'm not interested in speculating on art. It's far too risky
| for my taste. There's always a high risk of them being
| counterfeits. Verification by even top experts is pretty
| chancy.
| dahart wrote:
| Oh I agree with you there 100%. That's a different issue
| than having no proof at all, or no claim or story, right?
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Supply of money in the hands of people needing a place to stash
| it: way up.
|
| Numbers of famous historical artists: roughly constant,
| increasing very slowly
|
| Definition of famous: defined by sale price of work.
|
| Sale price: defined by fame
|
| Ascent to the list of famous/high sale price artists: under
| control.
|
| Club: big
|
| Your status: ain't in it.
| smt88 wrote:
| This isn't a great example because da Vinci was a famous
| historical figure and lived 500 years ago. Just the history of
| a real da Vinci is remarkable, regardless of the artistic
| merit.
|
| A more interesting example would be a convincing fake purported
| to be painted by a highly regarded artist who's still living
| and working today, and this does happen, too.
| throaway1988111 wrote:
| Isnt it just cause more people want to own a da Vinci than a
| non-da Vinci, so therefore the price goes higher cause more
| people are willing to outbid the other?
| dmezzetti wrote:
| This is the epitome of why people go to yard sales
| zkmon wrote:
| >> This is a testament to memory, family and the unexpected ways
| the past finds its way back to us
|
| If that was a true feeling, then they wouldn't sell it away as
| soon as they find it, as if it is something they must dispose off
| immediately.
|
| Sales culture is turning all men into drama queens.
| latexr wrote:
| I agreed with the first sentence, but then the second one had
| me scratching my head. Could you clarify/expand on what you're
| saying there?
| zkmon wrote:
| >> expand on "men turning into drama queens"
|
| Men sounding too sentimental, emotional, girly, too much
| talking, making lots of facial expressions, trying to please
| or convince someone,... even though it is not hard it see
| it's fake. The talk was all about millions, not family
| silver.
| latexr wrote:
| What's wrong about that? Why shouldn't a man be emotional,
| make facial expressions, or try to please someone? Why is
| that "fake"?
|
| I'm asking in general, since your original comment looked
| to be a general complaint and not only specific about this
| case.
| zkmon wrote:
| In this case, it is fake because they didn't value the
| very sentiment they were talking about. In general, those
| attributes in men make them drama queens.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| That doesn't follow. I could be incredibly sentimental
| about something and still very happily part with it for
| millions of dollars. You are inventing a dichotomy that
| doesn't exist.
|
| Further, saying that men shouldn't have emotions, or
| display the same emotions, lest they be labeled "drama
| queens", is absolutely gross behaviour. It's one of the
| contributors to the male loneliness / suicide epidemic,
| and you really should do better.
| zkmon wrote:
| Having irrational and excessive emotions and the
| associated negative feelings is the primary cause of
| extreme actions. You can do better at knowing things.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| _Having_ and expressing are two wildly different things.
| Your misunderstanding on this is the root of your
| ignorance.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| What's out of place in your comment is probably "men" and
| then "drama queens". It makes it sound like you have some
| rigid idea of how men are _supposed_ to be.
|
| Perhaps you meant to imply that it is society that
| pigeonholes men this way.
| Thorrez wrote:
| It doesn't sound right away to me:
|
| >The brothers found six comic books, including Superman #1, in
| the loft underneath a stack of newspapers inside a cardboard
| box and surrounded by cobwebs in 2024, Heritage said.
|
| > They waited a few months before contacting the auction house,
| but once they did, Heritage Auctions vice-president Lon Allen
| visited them in San Francisco within days, according to the
| auction house.
|
| >The brothers, who have chosen to withhold their names, are "in
| their 50s and 60s, and their mom had always told them she had
| an expensive comics collection but never showed them", Mr Allen
| said.
| zkmon wrote:
| Yep, it's not right away. They hesitated a few months to get
| rid of the 80-year old family piece, which their mother
| didn't bother selling. Family possessions should be treated
| as reserves to help off-springs down the family hierarchy in
| the needy times. Not to cash out because they are in 50s and
| 60s. 50s and 60s are just middle age when some people do a
| fresh start of their lives.
| tcgv wrote:
| It's more of an emotional reaction to the life-changing impact
| of $9 million, expressed that way, rather than a literal
| feeling to be taken word for word.
| OJFord wrote:
| My first thought reading the headline was that I would have no
| idea - could so easily throw away something apparently very
| valuable in such a scenario just because it's not something I
| know about.
|
| > their mum had always told them she had an expensive comic
| collection
|
| And perhaps they would have too, had they not known! (Or the
| mother not known either.)
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| Sounds like some sort of scam to me. The item is probably correct
| but the price seems way too high.
| bazoom42 wrote:
| Why? Similar comics have been sold for upwards of 6 mill, and
| this one is better graded.
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| Maybe I am too cynical but the story sounds fake. And I would
| not be surprised if this is some way of manipulating the
| market.
| libertine wrote:
| There's this new sentiment in the society of finding something
| rare with high value to flip it and make a bank. But the way it's
| being pursued... It just doesn't feel right.
|
| It almost feels like it's gambling, because it's a sentiment that
| leaks into modern collectibles, like card games.
|
| I'm not saying people don't value collectibles, or value
| nostalgia, or that some of these things should be limited to
| niches - the reality is that I can't quite put it into words, but
| a lot of it seems propped up... Or it's a false game everyone is
| knowingly playing, like a big Ponzi scheme.
|
| These superman copies, or the first editions of mtg, or even some
| modern vintage games, were never intended to be collectibles -
| people used them and played with them, created memories, and the
| production runs were really limited in comparison to modern day
| production runs, that make those items actually rare... Like few
| hundreds or thousands have survived in good condition - which is
| an achievement for toys, games and comics that get used a lot.
|
| Nowadays people buy stuff with high production runs, they never
| even create memories with the stuff... They slab stuff into a
| "hermetic" container right away, and get it graded...
|
| It just feels fake.
|
| Again I don't doubt people see value in this stuff, I just feel
| like they're valuing for the wrong reasons, and I can't wrap my
| head around how is that even sustainable.
|
| Who is going to value the memory of "remember when I bought 5
| booster boxes and pulled card X from the pack, with gloves on,
| put it in a sleeve and sent it to be graded straight away? Now
| those were the days!"
|
| It's like people want to compress the randomness of time and
| social behavior into a predictable cicle of months, with minimal
| effort and to extract the maximum value out of it.
|
| Am I overthinking this?
| pezezin wrote:
| I understand what you mean, and I agree.
|
| I have a similar experience: a couple of years ago I started to
| dip my toes into the retrogaming collecting world, and at first
| it was fun to get all those games that I really wanted to have
| as a kid, but it soon devolved into trying to track down all
| those overpriced "rare" games. It got exhausting, and made
| wonder why am I even doing this? Why would I spend several
| hundreds on a game or a console that I didn't even knew about
| until one year ago, just because some random YouTube guy told
| me so?
|
| Being a kid, really wanting a game or toy, finally getting it
| and then enjoying it to death was awesome; this is not. As you
| say, it doesn't feel right, so I have decided to quit.
| jebarker wrote:
| Not sure why I find this surprising, but this comic is worth
| twice as much as Napoleon's diamond encrusted brooch recently
| sold for [1]
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/world/europe/napoleon-
| dia...
| javier123454321 wrote:
| It's not worth twice as much. There was a buyer willing to pay
| twice as much. For something like this, the fact that value is
| completely subjective really sticks out. Trying to sell it
| again tomorrow might go for half or double.
| jebarker wrote:
| Yeah, the point of sharing was to point out the subjectivity.
| The brooch sold at auction too.
| qoez wrote:
| To be fair that's true for everything including the jewels
| rvba wrote:
| If the buyer paid 9M, doesnt this means that someone else
| wanted to pay 8M?
|
| What I am trying yo say: at least two collectors (?) or
| speculators (?) with deep pockets.
| sema4hacker wrote:
| Growing up, I had a closet full of terrific toys in great
| condition, many of them unusual and fairly rare. When I got back
| from my first year of college, I found that my Mom, unlike the
| mother in the article, had given them all away. I was so
| disappointed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-22 23:01 UTC)