I'm not sure how new this merger news is to everyone... but I wanted to start a discussion here, as to what this means for our collections?
I'm not as involved in the collector community as I'd like to be, but I do happen to have a full 1888-2015 pedigree collection (60's reprints of 1888-1907), I don't know the value of it, but I also don't like the implications of what big changes like this USUALLY means for collections of this nature.
I have a librarian friend of mine hitting up some of her resources to see what appraisers and experts think, but what I'm thinking is that this will cause increase interest and value for a small window of time, and then values could exponentially decrease.
(I noticed a similar phenomenon with StarWars collectibles leading up to, and after the release of Episode 1. Values increased up to the release, but after fanboy disappointment with the movie, lots of values plummeted.)
Is this "merger" our Episode 1, as Natl. Geo. Collectors?
I'm sure there have got to be experts on this forum, as well, right?
I'm not sure that I'm interested in separating a pedigree collection... I'm really looking to either figure out what I would need to do in order to pass the full collection along to someone who can appreciate it, or if I am correct in my assuming that the values may be dropping from the merger, and I can count on only sentimental value in the future...
I'm seeking info more than anything, right now... but I will keep you in mind if I do end up deciding to break up the collection... but I don't really see myself doing that, honestly... I'll probably keep the collection if it came to that... but out of curiosity, how much would you offer for the reprints? Also... they are the bound, hardback reprints, not loose... They seem very close to mint, but I'm no appraiser...
I am by no means an expert, but I do love collecting Nat Geos. I do not feel the merger with Fox is going to depreciate the value of past National Geographics. Indeed, it is my feeling the pre-Fox issues will increase in value.
Perhaps I am playing the devils advocate here, but I am not optimistic about the new issues coming after the merger. I cannot imagine Fox being able to increase the posterity value of the magazine, nor, indeed, do anything for the magazine except turn it into another advertisement for big business. It is, sadly, now National Geographic magazine's job to make Rupert Murdoch richer, and if it fails to do so, it will surely go down just like the Titanic.
So, I feel the pre-Fox issues will be the harbingers of 'the good old days', back before the perversion of our beloved magazine was perpetrated by Fox. I fail to see how the pre-Fox issues cannot go up in value.
But, again, that is just one man's opinion.
I thought long and hard about this topic in an attempt not to make a knee jerk reaction to this event. Many in the main stream media have taken a pessimistic view of this. Two examples:
You yourself look at it as a loss of value to your collection. I, personally, view this as a good thing. Not only the obvious influx of money, but also the fact that Mr. Murdock is a successful businessman. He knows the most important selling point of our flagship magazine is its integrity and will do nothing to risk it.
Here's a snippet from an article that puts this more in perspective:
"Only four employees will lose their jobs at National Geographic magazine and its digital newsroom, said Declan Moore, a veteran National Geographic Society executive who will become chief executive of the Fox partnership, known as National Geographic Partners. But dozens more will be laid off in departments and services that Fox will provide to the partnership: legal, accounting, personnel and technology, among others."
I have no real comment about the merger, only about the value of a NG collection.
From its foundation, the National Geographic has been an international icon in terms of its leadership in the dissemination of geographic knowledge and pictorial exposes about the world. From 1888 until, say, post WWII, it can genuinely be said to be a magazine of great historical import. Those magazines therefore have their own intrinsic value that I believe can only appreciate with time.
From the period after WWII until recently, the magazine has continued its excellence, but in competition with many other media players and with very large numbers of publications of each issue. Such magazines therefore have only modest collectable value today, except perhaps as part of a more extensive collection.
So, is the Fox merger significant in terms of the value of a genuine National Geographic collection?
It seems to me that the answer is a solid NO!
While I still doubt that Murdoch plans to muzzle the editorial staff of National Geographic, he apparently has forced one change. While researching the internet for an article I was writing, I came across this article:
...do you happen to have any kind of recollection of what that link above was about - the gist of it? The link is no longer active. This is why I am not a fan of everything becoming dependent on the web, because these pages are neither static, nor permanent.
Sorry about the dead link, Scott.
The news article was about the NatGeo stopping the practice of photographing natives au natural.
Did they give a sense as to Murdoch's rationale for that ?
...as for "autonomy", if they can, and are willing to do so, make this change, they can "interfere" and make any/all changes.
Their pledge of non-interference does not ring true...