Guardian article: Why Elvis memorabilia is plummeting in value

That's a bit rich coming from you of all people, lording over this thread like someone asked you to be the teacher....

 

Unacceptable Topics :

• Bootleg or pirated editions of copyrighted works, including discussions of contents and sources of same

.

 

My apologies. Post deleted.

 

Lording over this thread? Love it. Keep the comedy coming.

 

Elvis Presley played in Raleigh in 1955. The only known poster in the world left from the show is for sale.

Elvis Presley's Iconic Sunglasses Sell For A Record-Breaking $159,900

 

Andy Warhol's Elvis portrait could fetch $30M at Christie's sale

 

A rare poster from Elvis Presley's 1955 NC concert sells for double the expected price

 

Personally, I find their work leading up to Rubber Soul to be kind of mediocre but yeah, Let It Be was generally tedious. Yellow Submarine was also complete crap.

 

My mother once told me, she said son, it takes all kinds of people to make up this world, no matter how strange they may be!

 

You don't have to mythologize The Beatles' every album in order for them to be important.

 

That doesn't surprise me in the least, she's your mother and would love you no matter how strange you are.
Was you talking about Paul McCartney whilst she was telling you this? My guess would be yes.

 

Saw a girl in her late teens come in the library this past week wearing an Elvis shirt. I see Beatles and Stones shirts on younger folks quite often but that was a first.

 

Elvis Presley ring given to stunned female fan at concert on sale for £75,000

 

Back in May an Elvis Omega 75m RCA sales watch sold for $1.8m and I also read the belt he wore for a Hawaii show went for over $400k, not bad for plummeting value.

Omega Watch Belonging to Elvis Presley Sells at Auction for $1.8 Million

 

I’m not sure that is what the article is referring to - I’m sure there is a difference between a one of diamond watch which was bought back by Omega to the slightly more general aspects of Elvis memorabilia.

 

Put whatever spin you want on it, I read about it in Vintage Rock magazine so there will be a difference between that article and one in the Guardian which by its very nature will want to put a negative pov on anything Elvis as he doesn't fit into their demographic by a million miles.

 

I think one of the reasons is that he recorded tons of awful records. You can find a lot of subpar compilations and dismal soundtrack albums in the bins.

But at his best (From Elvis to Memphis, Sun sessions..) he was and is the best singer and performer one can imagine

 

It’s not a spin - it is a fact that the company who produced the watch for RCA bought it back for their museum. This is not your average Omega watch either and you do not need to buy the Guardian to realise that the bottom has fallen out of the market for general Elvis memorabilia especially the records - outside of the Sun Records, the early RCA or HMV stuff or early magazines, the value of the majority of records is pretty poor now. The Beatles Monthly mag commands much higher prices than the Elvis Monthly magazine.

A company or museum buying such an item as this watch is not a reflection on how Elvis' general records and memorabilia are perceived with regard to their value. I cannot remember the last time I was at a record fair when I found lots of Elvis albums that had reasonably high prices - in the main, they averaged around £10 with a lot of the 70s stuff averaging £8. The highest priced album I have seen recently was for the '59 UK album Elvis which had a price tag of £35 and was in pretty good condition too. Even the once prized US singles with picture sleeves are not getting the value they once got. I see lots of green label RCA International albums at record fairs selling for an average price of £3-4. Compare this to Bowie stuff on the same label which appear to command prices of around 8-10 times those values. My local second hand record shop has stopped taking in Elvis albums as he says no one is interested - they remain in the racks. When I look through the Elvis section, I see the same albums that were on display over two years ago.

The big problem is that as the years go buy and as Elvis fans depart this world, more collections are released into the market, but there are not enough new fans coming along to replace them or who are interested in buying original stuff. They are more interested in buying the FTD stuff.

At the moment, the interest in Elvis outside of the fan base is pretty low. The recent TV documentary The Searcher which received positive reviews suffered from disappointing viewing figures not just in the US but in the U.K. too. Sky TV was very disappointed. Sales of the accompanying album were likewise low with sales of around 11k in the US despite repeated screenings of the documentary on the HBO Channel.

So yes, items once owned by Elvis will always command pretty good prices, and the Warhol prints will certainly do likewise, but the auction prices for the Warhol prints are not a just a reflection on Elvis' collectability, but Warhol's too. And that stuff falls outside the scope of general Elvis collectability and the values.

 

It's not spin it's reality. Like a lot of memorabilia items, some are still in demand and others are not. Items that sold in the link you posted are upper echelon type stuff.

I used to collect Zeppelin items, most have not increased in value or demand and many have gone down. On the other hand concert posters have gone through the roof. If I try and sell my pic sleeve 45rpm pressing I'll be lucky to get what I paid for them 10-25 years ago. But if you had a bathrobe that Page worse on the 80's tour, whatever you paid for it, it would be worth a lot more right now.

Collectors at those types of levels aren't really interested in a lot of other items like records unless they are incredibly special.

Things will always fall out of flavour in some fashion.

 

Not go get too off track...the reviews might have been positive but I didn't like the first part. So much so I haven't even bothered to watch the second. I found it boring. It was a disappointment and I don't think people missed much. I'll watch it again one day to give it another chance.

 

I got a vinyl copy of Revolver (US edition, original pressing) for just $20 about 10 years ago. Not mint, but in pretty good shape. I don't know what the going rate is for that sort of thing, maybe I was ripped off or maybe it was a steal?

Anyway, I have already been wondering this for a while, what will happen as fans of these artists gradually die out? I think a lot of these artists will become very niche things, though maybe the Beatles' legacy might not die or change quite as early, considering they've been one of the more popular groups with younger generations. I think Elvis' legacy has been damaged a lot by questions of cultural appropriation, many see him as a fraud and a thief, and that's really hurt his reputation and made younger people less likely to earnestly explore his back catalogue (I used to buy into the whole "Elvis stole it from the blacks" nonsense but then I played in a band with a huge Elvis fan and I found he had some solid music in his discography). Of course the Beatles were also arguably guilty of a similar appropriation, but they haven't (yet) been subject to quite the same level of scrutiny. But I think it's starting to happen.

People have already been questioning their validity and status as "greatest band ever" for a while now. I recently saw a Quincy Jones interview where he trashed them, talking about how Ringo was a crap drummer and Paul couldn't play bass (guess he never listened to the basslines on "Hey Bulldog" or most of Abbey Road). And I saw some piece last year by a feminist journalist trashing Sgt Pepper. Their legacy has been under attack and if it continues, I imagine we'll see something similar happen to the market for Beatles memorabilia. So many thing wrong with that article, for one, the assumption that male music fans didn't care about pop music before Sgt Pepper is utter BS. The assumption that later Beatles records aren't danceable or good enough for female fans. The assumption that straight white men hate disco (hey, I'm one and I enjoy a lot of disco, but whatever). Etc. It's telling she didn't bother to cite any of the original 1967 reviews of that album to back her arguments, instead basing it on her assumptions based in sexist resentment. And way to go for her assuming female fans are only interested in danceable music by pretty boys. To say nothing of the generally divisive tone and statements like "girl-tastes are the ones that are ahead of the curve."

Sorry to rant there, but I think this sort of picking apart at their legacy will probably continue. I'm OK with that because it won't change their status as a great band in my eyes (and I've always enjoyed the early "teeny bopper" side of their catalog as much as the later albums). But I wouldn't be one bit surprise if that sort of attitude becomes more commonplace and we see their reputation shrink and demand for their memorabilia dwindle within the next 20 years.

 

What kind of memorabilia are we talking about? Lunch boxes and rubber duckies... yeah that crap isn't worth squat.
The items that he owned or worn or signed still sell for big bucks. Try buying some original SUN records for under $150 bucks.....

 

Elvis or his management put out a lot of records. There are only so many Beatles records so that helps.

I still play the Beatles a lot; Elvis maybe on a blue moon.

 

While in Kentucky?