Creatrope

I could use some advice from a true collector, as I’m going to make some leaps I may one day regret here.

My hypothesis is that, generally speaking, most objects that have no collectible value after N years (N>10? 20?) are unlikely to gain appreciably in N*2 year or N*4 years.

So if I’m holding on a thirty year old comic book, whose cover price is $.10 and it’s only worth $.50 now, it’s reasonable bet that this particular comic book will not turn out to be amazingly valuable in another thirty years.

If one can’t extrapolate like this, any normal person would become a hideous packrat saving nearly everything they ever touch. Some people do!

I acknowledge there will be exceptions, but is ‘playing the odds’ like this a reasonable bet? I’m not sure I want to know otherwise. It’s enabled me to clear out a lot of stuff!

Mary Hawkins comments on the above, via 43things:

While I’m thinking about it, I suspect your collecting rule only applies
to things that are “collectable”, like figurines or comic books. You can
use your rule on things that already have a market, but it doesn’t apply
to the things that no one is actively collecting. My bf collects vintage
tin robots. The early collectors got in when there wasn’t a market and
you could buy the toys as toys at yard sales for a buck a piece. Once
people started to want the toys, the prices went up, but people had to
keep the toys in their attics for 20-40 years before the market formed.
The scarcity drives the prices higher. I wonder if there have been any
statistical analysis of “antiques” and collectibles…