For those of you who don’t know, Jerry Beck posted last month that Bonhams Entertainment Media would be auctioning off “the only known copy” of Hungry Hobos, a 1928 Disney cartoon with Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. Their estimated it to sell at $30,000-$40,000, possibly the most ridiculous sum of money I’ve ever heard for a film of any kind.
Tom Stathes (whose excellent post on the subject can be read here has now informed me that Bonhams did indeed meet their goal on December 14th, and the print sold for $31,250.
The ramifications of such a sale could be devastating for film preservation as a whole, as anyone who has taken an active role in film preservation can see (like me, for one). As I said in my original comment on Jerry’s post, the idea of a print of a single cartoon, silent or otherwise, selling for more than $1,000 is utterly insane.
For starters it’s 16mm, which right off the bat indicates that the print is not unique. Exceptionally rare it may be (as is certainly the case with Hungry Hobos), if one 16mm print exists, there were surely more of them, so they are out there, but who knows where. Secondly, at its running time of 5 minutes, 21 seconds, it most certainly is incomplete. So the unknown bidder sank the over $30K into a cartoon missing footage. And sight unseen, without much of a condition report otherwise. What are we talking wear and splice-wise? Warpage? Vinegar? Thirdly, again it’s 16mm – utterly inferior to a 35mm element – of a copyrighted film. What are you going to do with it? Even at $1,000, your chances of recouping the costs by loaning it to the copyright holder for a transfer are slim.
Given the quality of the Oswalds that do survive and are packaged on the Disney Treasures set is sporadically interesting at best, it’s more than likely Hungry Hobos is no lost masterwork. What is going on in the buyer’s head that makes this seem like a sound investment?
Tom, who has done more than anyone I can think of to preserve silent animation, fears this may set a precedent – that now all silent animation will be marketed as rare diamonds either online or at auction houses, preventing people like him, Steve Stanchfield, and Ray Pointer from making sure these films are truly cared for and made as widely available as possible. There might be a bit of trepidation in thinking like that, but it’s still a fair point, and anything that could sabotage the efforts of fine historians is cause for concern.
It is my sincerest hope that anyone with even a passing interest will publicly scorn Bonhams, and the Huntley Film Archives for that matter, for their recent affront on the institution that is the genuine film archive. Please actively voice your indignation to ensure this is a one-time fluke.
Addendum: Due to the move, comments on this post were lost. But, thanks to Google Cache, you can read them again.
Jim Lidner
15 Dec 11 at 8:12 am
There are other perspectives on this sale which are worth discussing.
One of the huge issues in this field is the lack of money for preservation and part of that issue leads back to the valuation of the asset in the first place. It is sometimes hard to justify spending X for preservation of an asset when the valuation of that asset is 1/20 X. While the case in the non-profit and archive/museum environment for preservation is likely made on a different basis – in the commercial sector there is real discussion about whether assets should be preserved at all, and if so how much money can and should be devoted to the activity.
In the commercial world, determining what is a fair and reasonable budget for preserving any asset invariably gets back to two major factors. In this discussion I am assuming the asset is fully depreciated on the books and so has essentially $0 value or was expensed or written off many years ago in terms of production cost.
One of the ways of determining value is the discounted cash flow that asset is likely to be able to generate in the future for the owner. So for example – if a given movie title or series is sold into syndication and has been generating revenues for decades (Seinfeld for example, or I Love Lucy), making a preservation case is pretty easy, the asset has generated money in the past and is likely to in the future, and those revenues are almost certainly to be larger then the cost of preservation. Conversely making the financial argument for the preservation of local TV station news collections is a difficult one. These types of collections, while commercial, may have never generated any income, are relevant only in a very local area, may be only of interest at the time the story aired, may have no ability to be sold in the future as stock footage, and so have little or no ability to generate any cash flow over time. This is one of the reasons why many of these types of collections have been deaccessioned by local stations either into the dumpster or to a local archive which may have broader interests and mandates. From a commercial standpoint, preservation is usually a tough case to make if there is no expected cash flow from an asset.
The other main way of determining value is what the “fair market value”of the asset is, and this is where an auction like this may actually be helpful. There are several “regulars” on this list who have sold their archives and collections for far less then they believed they were worth, and one of the reasons for that relate to the low fair market valuation of prints coupled with the limited demonstrated ability to generate cash flow over time. Since in many cases the discounted cash flow value of an asset in a collection is very uncertain, investors are forced to look at the fair market value. If that fair market value is low, then there is no financial basis for paying more for a collection or similarly investing more in the preservation of the collection. It is reasonable for investors to be reticent to spend their cash now on an asset that has an uncertain future generating cash in the future and has essentially no fair market value. How is an investor able to recoup their investment?
This is where the establishment of a higher fair market value may be helpful. If a print has very low fair market value, then making the case for preserving it or selling it as part of a collection can be difficult – particularly if the copyright is unknown or does not belong to the print owner. This is the case for thousands of productions. If, however, higher fair market value can be established – allowing the asset to be “marked up” over current book value – the story is very different.
I can understand why this auction result might be disturbing to individual or hobbyist collectors on the “buy side” because it may establish a higher fair market value for many assets that will severely affect their ability to acquire objects at their former lower price. However on the other side – as a seller, it may mean that their collections are worth far more then they ever dreamed. It cuts both ways.
This may have tax implications as well which may benefit non-profits. Giving an asset that has a high fair market value to a non-profit organization may have tax benefits to the giver.
One auction that resulted in a high price does not establish a comparable for all prints or even all silent animation prints of the same kind and quality as that auctioned. There will have to be many more to establish higher fair market value, and that value will be affected by many things for any appraisal or asset – however over time, if more auctions fetch these kind of prices then over time higher fair market value may be established and this may be very helpful for many preservation efforts. It may mean that a re-appraisal of any given collection with a higher established fair market value will find that the collection is valued at far more then ever before.
Higher fair market valuations may create opportunities for both buyers and sellers and non-profits and also help justify funds for preservation as well.
Bee
15 Dec 11 at 10:10 am
Oh get over yourself! Huntley’s a commerical venture. If the film had been donated someplace, ther’s no guarantee it would have been preserved–could have languished on a shelf for years.
Thad
15 Dec 11 at 10:19 am
Hi Bart.
You’re wrong.
Thad
15 Dec 11 at 12:26 pm
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your meaty comment. I agree in principle that, no, one outrageous sale does not set fair market value, but I’m offended by the ethical dilemma that’s sprung up. You say it’s positive for sellers, but I’m also a seller – admittedly not a high volume one, but a seller none the less, and I personally think many prices paid for film are outrageous, even though I’ve profited many times from what I’ve considered “crazy bids”. If a film I list goes for too much, I’m stuck with it, but I personally would have been just happy to get back what I paid for the print in the first place and not much more. Tom, on the other hand, has 600+ films of this vintage and would benefit tremendously if this auction sets a precedent, so if the time comes when he has to sell his estate… but he isn’t happy with the outcome either.
At the moment, a flood of rumors has reached my ears that Disney was indeed the high bidder of this auction. I hope that’s the truth, as that’s the only way this will ensure this remains an isolated incident.
Jim Lidner
15 Dec 11 at 2:26 pm
Hi Thad,
I am not sure that this is such an isolated case – it depends on the specific market and the history and interest in it. Since we are on the subject of Disney – Disneyana are Disney items that are deemed collectible, and at times there has been an entire industry based on Disney items and their collectability. And as you know the studio’s themselves have exploited this pretty significantly. One example is the lithography of cells with backgrounds that really have little to do with production cells and backgrounds as used in production. I always found it interesting that actual REAL key frame drawings by the artists themselves used in production frequently fetched far less then the litho’s that had very little to do with the actual artists that created the art in the first place. Also worth noting is that the value of these very much varied by the character and its popularity – having very little to do with the artists and actual art work and unique nature of it. Not based on the unique nature (key frame drawings ARE the original art) but on other values that the market seems to determine are more collectable.
So the market does determine value, and while we might not like it – the reality is that this is frequently how items are valued and not just in this area but in many things.
Tom Stathes
15 Dec 11 at 3:49 pm
Hi Jim,
I’ve just submitted a new message to AMIA-L, but I’d like to reply to your last comment here. What some in our circles don’t seem to understand is the outrageousness of the price for a 16mm film print–yes, even though it’s a highly rare Disney cartoon–because this simply never has happened for film prints.
Drawings, art, collectibles, 1920s and 1930s memorabilia…absolutely, and rightfully so that it is traded at high prices. But film is just a different entity altogether, and this sale really is an isolated incident in that regard. Our trading of these films really has been completely separate from sales and auctions of highly valuable animation art, collectibles, and so forth. We believe films should remain accessible to the public as opposed to a several thousand dollar 1930s Mickey toy being kept in a collector’s parlor cabinet, which is absolutely fine and understandable.
Kirk Nachman
18 Dec 11 at 9:12 am
There is nothing surprising about this sort of inflated economic phenomena as it relates to cultural artifacture of any kind.
Art and the unique object, in terms of the contemporary art market, has changed so drastically that multiples or editions sell for what was heretofore reserved for paintings alone, and in some cases works of video and installation are sold by way of certificates of ownership, something like copyright licensing, for works which have unlimited iterations in the form of exhibition copies, and internet files, or are simply created and destroyed on site, depending on what institution exhibits the work. That is, the object in-itself no longer commands the value that its uniqueness once bestowed on it. Why should this sort of effect be alien to the collecting of animation art and artifacture? -it’s only another art market. Irrationally exhuberant though these numbers may be.
Saddle-up, Tommy. You just might make some money.
