If you’ve ever hauled out a dusty old shoebox full of “Magic: The Gathering” or “Pokemon” cards, hoping to discover that they’d appreciated splendidly over the past few decades, you’ve probably also experienced that moment of disappointment when the local gaming store offers you $50 for the whole lot. On the other hand, maybe you’ve run across a news story about a particular Millenium Falcon model from the ‘80s going for some obscene sum and realized, “Holy cow! I have one of those unopened in my storage unit!” Both these (imaginary) anecdotes are typical of how most people interact with collectibles markets: sporadically and without much knowledge of this arcane branch of economics. For those hoping to make a serious business out of collectibles (like many storage auction hunters), a more systematic approach is called for. And while a blog post can’t hope to deliver the kind of granular, ultra-specialized knowledge needed to successfully navigate a particular, insular corner of this vast and variegated market, this post will aim to give the curious toe-dipper a sense of the waters.
Judging by the vigorous denunciations posted online, there has been a rash of ill-informed journalism declaring the “antiques market” to be “dead.” As those in the know are quick to point out, there is not a single “antiques market.” Rather, there are countless specialized markets, whose relative size has even been visualized by some research firm somewhere (though its makers are the first to admit that their figures likely exclude the huge understory of mom-and-pop concerns that don’t report their sales very well). 
Of course, the size of a given collectibles market doesn’t tell you average or median prices for individual items within it, unless you also know the annual number of transactions. The author of this dataset, an independent researcher, is somewhat vague about what he means by concentration, though his post gives a sense of the inherent vagaries involved in doing this kind of research. So, for non-collectors wondering if they have a hidden treasure sitting in storage, the right question to ask would be: What niches contain a fair number of high-value items, and does any of my old stuff fit one of those niches? If it does, it might be worth getting granular and researching the specific item you have.
One can find numerous lists online made for the purpose of ogling the insanely high prices paid for certain “collectibles” (though these “top 10” listicles usually are about art, which is really a different market). It is perversely fascinating to learn that a one-cent stamp from 1856 British Guyana not only set records, selling for $9.5 million, but had set several previous records, appreciating handsomely from sale to sale. Reports Gemr: “In 1932 it sold for $32,500, in 1970 for $280,000, and in 1980 for $935,000.” Even with this example, the nominal annual growth rate (not adjusting for inflation) is only remarkably high in the first period, when the stamp goes from its face value to super-collectible status. It then starts to look not much better than a decent growth stock.
But this kind of story is very much the tail of the distribution: The vast majority of items people collect (perhaps especially those marketed as “collector’s editions”) do not appreciate much, if at all. In fact, the “Global Investment Returns Yearbook” from Credit Suisse reports that in 2018, “Professors Dimson, Marsh and Staunton present[ed] the broadest study ever published on the long-term rewards from private-wealth assets [such as jewelry and collectibles]. They document the price appreciation since 1900 from a wide variety of private-wealth investments and compare them to the returns from financial assets. Many private assets have beaten inflation and in a period of low expected financial returns, they offer an emotional dividend that can be attractive to investors.”
As an aside, this all seems much in line with Thomas Piketty’s contention that a stagnant capitalism is slouching back toward a feudal world in which hoarding treasure and other less-than-dynamic practices once again come to define the wealthy, as the once-productive bourgeoisie ages into a sclerotic aristocracy. The collectibles researcher cited above notes that an earlier study by one of the same professors found collectibles returns since 1900 averaged only 2.4% “real” (inflation-adjusted) returns per year: something, but not much different from other asset classes. The point here is that without factoring in those “emotional dividends,” collectibles hardly present a get-rich-quick opportunity. It is quite interesting to note that wine, stamps, and violins sit between stocks and bonds in their return levels since 1900.
But if you’re less interested in the macroeconomics than in whether you can net a one-off cash bump by selling off an old toy, you can start with an eBay search for your particular item. That’s the ultra-sophisticated research methodology used by such listicles as the “Good Housekeeping” most collectible toys roster (which is still worth perusing for the sheer kitsch, even if there’s a low chance your attic treasure happens to be on it). One important takeaway from this and similar lists is that it’s fruitless to say anything either positive or negative about the value of a given class of collectibles. If someone says, “PEZ dispensers are a great investment,” or, “Beanie Babies are worthless,” you can write them off. You have to ask, which ones? Collectibles are valuable because of ultra-specific, often accidental characteristics, like the too-dark blue of a certain TY elephant that’s consequently worth around $5,000. Firsts are also often valuable, like the original Monopoly board prototype or the 1978 Luke Skywalker action figure.
Another category that’s valued based on “firstness” is books. First editions, especially if signed, can fetch hefty sums if the authors are famous and/or the print run was limited. It’s not a bad idea to make a habit of going to hear your favorite authors when they speak and do book-signings in town, mainly because you want to hear them talk (the “emotional dividend”) but also because you can walk away with a signed first edition (assuming it’s the book release tour). You’d better want the emotional dividend, though, because this is hardly a surefire investment strategy. No one knows at the time whether an author will have staying power. No one knew Fitzgerald would be the Fitzgerald or Tolkien the Tolkien when they got their crisp new copies of “The Great Gatsby”and “The Hobbit” signed at some 20th-century bookstore event. Whatever your potential collectibles, though, keep them in good shape. Small faults in condition can tank the price of seemingly great things — like a T.S. Eliot “Murder in the Cathedral” first edition with a ripped cover that a certain blogger was overly excited to find in a used bookstore!
The post Your Old Collectibles: What Are They Really Worth? appeared first on U-Store Self Storage.