At the same time, his naming of his son Kal-El and his public statements about the significance of Superman as a character suggest that the personal dimension was genuine rather than affected. He could simultaneously know that he was buying one of the most important collectible objects in existence and feel a personal connection to the character it represented. These are not mutually exclusive.
The “heirloom” framing of his 2011 statement—”I am hopeful that the heirloom will be returned to my family”—is perhaps the most revealing evidence about how he thought of the object. “Heirloom” is the language of family continuity, of an object that is valued for its meaning and history rather than its market price. It is not the language an investor would use about a financial instrument, and it is not the language a collector thinking primarily in terms of market value would typically choose. It is the language of someone who understood the object as having personal and familial significance, as something he wanted to pass on to future generations of his family.
The subsequent decision to sell the comic—approximately six months after its return—complicates this framing. Selling an object you described as an heirloom is an unusual choice. But context matters: Cage’s financial difficulties in the early 2010s were real and substantial, and $2.16 million in circumstances where debts were pressing may have been a more significant factor than the “heirloom” framing suggests. Or circumstances changed. People describe things they wish for in ideal circumstances; circumstances are rarely ideal.