Read on Twitter
The comic book speculation market that quickly evolved around comics in the 1960s and 1970s has become an integral component of comics culture, but due to its specific nature and values, it hasn’t always been kind to Claremont’s work in particular. 1/9 #xmen
The first thing to note is how robust this market is. At its peak a piece of pulp paper could sell for 5x its value in 12 months (under the right circumstances). Under absolutely ideal circumstances, one could sell for 30,000,000 X its original market value 70 years later. 2/9
The market infrastructure was (and to some extent is) remarkably well-developed also, with comic book stores, conventions, price guides, and now all manner of online resources operating as tertiary industries in themselves. 3/9
As comics scholar Richard Reynolds notes: “If connoisseurship and value to the collector alone gave access to the privileged world of high culture, superhero comics would have been there long ago.” Again, this is a really advanced culture. 4/9
The issue for Claremont is that unlike many of his contemporaries who have likewise achieved a certain literary status (Moore, Gaiman, Spiegelman, sometimes Miller), Claremont’s work was almost always an industry bestseller and Marvel comics flagship. 5/9
While ease of access is obviously a benefit in ways, financial valuation of Claremont’s best work is very low as a result of the market being oversupplied with UXM back-issues (save for the first couple years of the series). 6/9
As any art connoisseur will testify, financial valuation and participation in elite collector exchanges can have an effect on what’s called the “cultural capital” of the object itself. Simply put, seeing C’s work in dollar bins sends a subtle message that it’s not very good. 7/9
Relatedly, we aren’t likely to see too many NY Times headlines about an auction of a rare copy of UXM 136 selling for millions of dollars. They go for about $100 on ebay, CGC 9.4. This is just one way that a lack of scarcity and competition can hurt a series’ profile. 8/9
Put together, what we see is a sort of practical perspective on how Claremont’s cultural capital can be (and has been) undermined by its own near-immediate success. This is, of course, but one way that Claremont’s work has been a victim of its own popularity. 9/9
