pinupcartoonguy

When ever I see something iffy, the first thing I do is see what else for sale. This guy has a bunch of Seuss and Schultz fakes. 'Nuff said.

It probably was a few years back. I remember the piece because my friend was eye-balling it! I also remember telling him for the about the same price he could get a commission from Enrich.

I thought I saw something similar at Anthony Snyder's booth in S.D. . . .

It just takes one!

I think the seller's premium is higher if you have a reserve.

I think you are reading too literally. If the consignor would legitimately pay for the art with his bid of $y then in their opinion it's not a shill. So it's not that they're in it to win it, more that they can say they'd willingly pay $z to get it back in their collection (including the juice and fees) Just because a bidder would be willing to pay for the art, doesn't mean they intended to win. If I place a bid at what I deem fmv, doesn't mean I intend to win the piece--my intent is that the piece achieve at least that amount. After all, don't most consignors hope that the piece goes beyond fmv?

While Heritage may allow consignors to bid on their own auctions, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's only allowed if the consignor intends to WIN the auction. If the intent is to merely drive up the price, then it would still be shilling. A subtle but important distinction.

I don't know whether it's been noted before or not, but Comiclink's terms and condition has a phrase similar to Heritage's, but with one big diference: Regardless of the disclosure of his identity, any bid by a consignor or his agent on a lot consigned by him is deemed not to be made in “Good Faith.” Emphasis added.

The problem is on any given lot, it's hard to tell if there were any shinangans. Who knows how many people might have been involved in bidding stuff up?

I'm curious, assuming the auction houses had no knowledge that Mike was using friends to shill, under what theory would they be liable? An affected buyer's transaction was with Heritage. If Heritage makes restitution to the buyer, Heritage should then try to recover that loss from Romitaman. I see people in the other thread saying they are calling Heritage soon. The rest of us should follow suit with calls and emails... by Friday? Who says Heritage is going to make any sort of restitution? And why would they be obligated to?

I'm curious, assuming the auction houses had no knowledge that Mike was using friends to shill, under what theory would they be liable?

Is that not okay? The thread is called "Art behind glass" But not prints behind glass! No harm showing them, at least you're getting an opinion as to what you've got. It's art, just not original art.

Question for the group: will any of these revelations, and what the auction houses may or may not do in response, affect your willingness to bid in the upcoming auctions? no qualms personally, but if it starts getting oddly high i will bow out. I might not be playing in the field where this stuff occurs, though. Seems like it's happening to everything from 3-figure pieces to low 5-figure pieces. My guess is that the higher up in price you go, shillers will be less likely to risk getting stuck with their piece and covering the BP. From here on out, I'm only buying big ticket items. The thing is, it's not just covering your backside for the piece at auction, it's also covering your backside for all the comparable pieces sitting on your site.

I'd request they pick up the tab for shipping or in the alternative, have them ship it to the Beverly Hills office for you to pick up. Stuff goes back and forth between the office all the time, so it shouldn't be difficult for them to piggy back your art with another shipment.

Peanuts seems to have dropped . . .