> I'm a fan of a particular set of rare pulp
> spy novels from the 1960s and now I've got a
> reason to tell my wife why collecting them
> is a good thing to do, despite their high
> cost per copy:

> "But dear, they're objects of permanent
> value!"

Art is really a greater fool item. Better to create art and sell to a list of obtained clients and buyers. How you get this list and get them interested in your art is not the point of this discussion.

Alan Bond now knows the truth about art. Bye bye $56 mil

As for your novels. I would class that as memorabilia. And according to Gary Henrickson - if my memory serves me correctly - memorabilia has a high price life between 25 and 45 years. That is... 25 to 45 years after it was made, in fashion, in vogue, etc.

The logic is... at this time period those who grew up with it now have the disposable income to buy back pieces of their "childhood."

After this time period, all the childhood buying back is done and the price falls - those who did not grow up with those items have no interest (or only little interest) in the items.

Assuming this logic is true... items which were made around 1978 should soon begin to fetch higher prices. And should continue to do so for another twenty years. After which time, demand will decline - and so will "value."

On a side note... I am amazed how people will pay $100 - $200 for a modern clock (or spend nearly that much on wood and clock works and then make their own) when for the same money they can get hold of a nice looking art deco clock. The art deco clock will hold its value more. And is usually not made of cheap MDF or other throw away materials.

Anyway. The 25 to 45 year age thing is something you might want to consider before you buy "modern" old things. It means you can get rid of old stuff you have before it declines in value. And buy stuff before it goes up in value.

Michael Ross


$35,550 a week. That's what the woman we just wrote about makes. Subscribe and you get to read how