By using this site you agree to the use of cookies.Hey muggles, are you ready to make some money? More than 15 years after the first Harry Potter book debuted, interest in the series appears to be on the rise, particularly with speculation that author J.K. Rowling may be reviving the franchise. After all, Rowling did just publish a new Harry Potter short story about a “singing sorceress,” among other Potter-related literary efforts this summer. For Potter fans, that’s certainly reason to cheer. But a revival of the franchise may also provide an opportunity for those looking to profit from Potter, say collectibles and investment experts. The massive attention generated by another Potter book-turned-film — should Rowling go down that road — could boost the value of all things Potter, from first-edition books to movie memorabilia. And that’s to say nothing of what a Potter revival could mean for public companies with a direct stake in the franchise. Then again, even if the revival doesn’t happen, Pottermania is such that a case can be made for investing in Harry and company no matter what.
“The books already do so well,” says Dan Wade of Paul Fraser Collectibles, a British firm that tracks the autograph and memorabilia market. Indeed, some 450 million copies of the Potter titles have sold to date, and Scholastic, the U.S. Potter publisher, recently unveiled new cover illustrations for the books. But what are the best ways to profit from Potter? Read on for four options to consider. If there’s a Holy Grail among Potter collectors, it’s a first-edition copy of the first book in the seven-title series, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” (in the U.S., the title was released as “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”). Just 500 copies were part of the initial British printing, and 300 of those were sent to libraries, meaning it’s very rare to find a copy that hasn’t been considerably worn, says Wade. Paul Fraser Collectibles estimates the value for this Potter rarity is rising at a 19.3% annual rate, outpacing the growth in price for first editions of such classic novels as Jane Austen’s “Emma” (4.1%), F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” (9.9%) and Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray” (7.9%).
For those without five figures to invest, Wade suggests first editions of the second and third books in the series (“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” and “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” respectively). Both books had relatively small initial British print runs of around 10,000 copies – that makes them not as rare as “Philosopher,” but not exactly everyday finds, either. (AbeBooks says prices for “Chamber of Secrets” and “Prisoner of Azkaban” are generally in the four figures.) Wade believes the first, second and third books in the Potter series will continue to do well investment-wise, because of their scarcity and the fact they’re a natural collectible for Potter fans as they come of age — meaning as they grow older and start earning some money (the non-allowance kind, that is). But Wade cautions against buying first editions of the later books in the series because they were printed in such vast numbers. “I would run a mile before investing in these,” he says.
What’s bad news for J.K. Rowling fans is good news for autograph collectors. Namely, Rowling is not one to sign her name readily, and that has made her autograph a hot commodity. She doesn’t do book readings and tours,” says Steve Petrick, a Potter fan who holds the distinction of having the largest collection of Potter memorabilia, according to the Guinness Book of World Records. (And, yes, Petrick has a couple of prized Rowling signatures, plus a personal signed note she sent him a few years ago.) Paul Fraser Collectibles says an autographed Rowling book goes for around $3,000 and has averaged an annual 16.7% price increase since 2000. Rowling could eventually become more accommodating about signing; in turn, that could lower prices, autograph experts warn. Meanwhile, a more affordable option for Potter fans remains autographs of cast members from the films. The big three, of course, are Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. But Wade says they’re not as strong an investment option, since prices for the trio have been flat in recent years.
In particular, he advises staying away from Grint, whose autograph is worth a few hundred dollars at best. “Poor old Rupert,” he says. There’s hardly a category of Harry Potter collectible that doesn’t exist, from Harry Potter trading cards to a Harry Potter Christmas plate. But with so much stuff on the market, collecting experts say to be wary: If an item is mass-produced, it may not have all that much value (see above reference to first editions of later Harry Potter books). As for those items that are dubbed “limited edition,” well, let’s just say some experts cast doubts about their limitedness. So, what’s worth collecting? Any props or costumes from the Potter movies are likely to be valuable in the short and long run, experts say. “They’re hard to come by,” says Petrick. A case in point: An overcoat worn by Gary Oldman, who played Sirius Black in the 2004 film “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” went for more than $25,000 in a 2007 auction.
Another category of items to keep in mind: Decorative figurines, particularly those made by the Enesco brand. “They’re fragile, so chances of them surviving a child are quite slim,” says William Silvester, author of the “Harry Potter Collector’s Handbook.” Oh, and don’t forget Harry Potter Lego sets, either, toy experts say. That’s not so much because of the Potter factor but because Legos are a hot collectible category in general. No, you can’t buy shares in Harry Potter Inc. — or J.K. Rowling Inc., for that matter. That’s because no such entities exist. But book publisher Scholastic is a public company. For that matter, so is Comcast , which is the parent of Universal Studios theme parks, home to the insanely popular (and newly expanded) Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando (have you heard about the seven-hour waits?). But Wall Street analysts say it’s generally not a good idea to purchase stock in a media or entertainment company based on a single brand or project.