The Official November Heritage Auction Thread 2 2

[Bronty]

59 minutes ago, Taylor G said:

You know how Ponzi schemes end?

Very badly.

You know how Ponzi schemes are defined?   I would suggest not. 

[drdroom]

2 hours ago, dem1138 said:

Well now they pulled it.

A lot you have been tracking, lot # 94083, previously described as: "Jack Kirby and Russ Heath Tales of Suspense #28 Splash Page 1 Original Art (Marvel, 1962). A fantastic splash page that could easily have been used as one of Kirby's famous "monster" covers of the day! This one's extra special with inks by Russ Heath, renowned as one of the great Silver Age pencilers in his own right. Rendered at twice-up scale in ink over graphite on Bristol board with an image area of 12.5" x 18.5". The slightly toned board has adhesive residue along the back edges, with light smudging and staining from handling wear. In Very Good condition. From the Estate of Jeff Gorrell." in the 2020 November 19 - 22 Comics & Comic Art Signature Auction - Dallas, #7236 has been withdrawn from the auction and is no longer available for tracking.

I feel sort of guilty or something.

[First Upgrade]

That 'withdrawn lot' is no longer withdrawn...huh...

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, Bronty said:

You know how Ponzi schemes are defined?   I would suggest not. 

It isn’t a Ponzi scheme, but it still is feeding the beast.

If you want to throw in a bid because you may get lucky, that’s fine. Or want to track, or shake out casual bidders who may upset your strategy, nothing wrong with that either. But why perhaps deny another bidder something they may really want for no good reason by kicking up a price? There are a fair number of people on these boards who scratch up money for their lovely art. Every dollar counts. And then, the higher sales price establishes a rough benchmark for private sales. Which then slows up the market, because prices are tough to ratchet down.

I apologize if I am seeming unduly incensed, but where the game is rigged against bidders, I try to be cautious with my bids. I know you mean well.

[Bronty]

19 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

It isn’t a Ponzi scheme, but it still is feeding the beast.

If you want to throw in a bid because you may get lucky, that’s fine. Or want to track, or shake out casual bidders who may upset your strategy, nothing wrong with that either. But why perhaps deny another bidder something they may really want for no good reason by kicking up a price? There are a fair number of people on these boards who scratch up money for their lovely art. Every dollar counts. And then, the higher sales price establishes a rough benchmark for private sales. Which then slows up the market, because prices are tough to ratchet down.

I apologize if I am seeming unduly incensed, but where the game is rigged against bidders, I try to be cautious with my bids. I know you mean well.

And that's the perspective of someone looking to increase holdings.    If you're someone with a lot of holdings already, you may have a different perspective.    

Let's say you have 90% of the walt simonson thor pages in existence.   If a Simonson comes up, if it fails, it drags down your 500 examples.   If it does well, it drags up your 500 examples.   Which outcome do you prefer?   In a situation where you're long on what's being sold, what you pay for the item at auction isn't nearly as relevant to you as the market for what you already have.

You can say its rigged against the bidders, or ask why we can't all just share, or whatever, but ultimately it doesn't work like that.   People are going to game the system as much as they can within (and sometimes outside of) the rules. 

Someone bidding up examples similar to their own, frankly, I don't have an issue with it.   Their money is as good as anyone else's.   

So if, someone had, for example, loads of Romita Spiderman pages and was active in the market to promote the value of those pages, that would be their right for having seen the potential in it before everyone else.    I don't subscribe to the idea that all fans deserve to have a page.   The people that deserve to have a page are the people that pay for them.    Its not kindergarten and that type of logic applied to say, real estate, would sound ridiculous.   Markets aren't moral or amoral.   Barring the illegal all you have is buyers, and sellers, and as long as you pay the bill or deliver the goods as the case may be, you've done your part.     Strategic buys and strategic sells are fair play if no misrepresentation, illegalities, or shenanigans.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

37 minutes ago, Bronty said:

And that's the perspective of someone looking to increase holdings.    If you're someone with a lot of holdings already, you may have a different perspective.    

Let's say you have 90% of the walt simonson thor pages in existence.   If a Simonson comes up, if it fails, it drags down your 500 examples.   If it does well, it drags up your 500 examples.   Which outcome do you prefer?   In a situation where you're long on what's being sold, what you pay for the item at auction isn't nearly as relevant to you as the market for what you already have.

You can say its rigged against the bidders, or ask why we can't all just share, or whatever, but ultimately it doesn't work like that.   People are going to game the system as much as they can within (and sometimes outside of) the rules. 

Someone bidding up examples similar to their own, frankly, I don't have an issue with it.   Their money is as good as anyone else's.   

So if, someone had, for example, loads of Romita Spiderman pages and was active in the market to promote the value of those pages, that would be their right for having seen the potential in it before everyone else.    I don't subscribe to the idea that all fans deserve to have a page.   The people that deserve to have a page are the people that pay for them.    Its not kindergarten and that type of logic applied to say, real estate, would sound ridiculous.   Markets aren't moral or amoral.   Barring the illegal all you have is buyers, and sellers, and as long as you pay the bill or deliver the goods as the case may be, you've done your part.     Strategic buys and strategic sells are fair play if no misrepresentation, illegalities, or shenanigans.

I don’t agree with that perspective. An auction is to sell things, not rig markets, and that is what you are claiming is okay—placing a corner on the market against too low a price for a Simonson Thor. It is justifying anti-competitive behavior by essentially setting prices by preventing a piece from selling too low—a small market, but a distinct one nonetheless. Frankly, if someone ever went after the subject, it may qualify as a violation of anti-trust law. That is definitely illegal, can result in a treble damages assessment, and can be criminal. In some states, it is separately illegal under State law. Strategic buys and sells, as you put it are legally wrong. And by harming the public, morally wrong as well.

[Bronty]

18 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

I don’t agree with that perspective. An auction is to sell things, not rig markets, and that is what you are claiming is okay—placing a corner on the market against too low a price for a Simonson Thor. It is justifying anti-competitive behavior by essentially setting prices by preventing a piece from selling too low—a small market, but a distinct one nonetheless. Frankly, if someone ever went after the subject, it may qualify as a violation of anti-trust law. That is definitely illegal, can result in a treble damages assessment, and can be criminal. In some states, it is separately illegal under State law. Strategic buys and sells, as you put it are legally wrong. And by harming the public, morally wrong as well.

WHere's the eye roll emoji?   You're going to attempt to get inside of the head of the purchaser and delineate between him wanting a 501st page or wanting a data point beneficial to his holdings?   Or both?

You're going to read the purchaser's mind, and make it a crime for him to have one motivation to purchase, but not another?    And somehow you're going to be able to tell the difference between the two and when our fictional purchaser is buying for the love of the art and when he's buying for another reason?    What evidence are you going to bring forward?   Transcripts of your mind readings?   Considering the only person that knows the purchaser's motivations is the purchaser himself?

C'mon man.    There's a planet earth down here if you look out of the window of that ivory tower.    

The practical gaps in the application of what you're suggesting are clear to see.   Get real!

Edited November 11, 2020 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

7 minutes ago, Bronty said:

WHere's the eye roll emoji?   You're going to attempt to get inside of the head of the purchaser and delineate between him wanting a 501st page or wanting a data point beneficial to his holdings?   Or both?

You're going to read the purchaser's mind, and make it a crime for him to have one motivation to purchase, but not another?    And somehow you're going to be able to tell the difference between the two and when our fictional purchaser is buying for the love of the art and when he's buying for another reason?    What evidence are you going to bring forward?   Transcripts of your mind readings?   Considering the only person that knows the purchaser's motivations is the purchaser himself?

C'mon man.    There's a planet earth down here if you look out of the window of that ivory tower.    

I don't see how your post amounts to anything other than flexing that you passed the bar. 

Four Bar exams, actually (a misspent youth). 

Evidence of intent is often circumstantial. A repeat pattern of bidding at auction until a price goes above some amount, if combined with a bidder’s holdings in which advertised prices are at least that amount, is legally relevant to show intent to rig the market. As to the ivory tower, anti-competitive legal actions are some of the most ivory tower cases out there— and, they don’t always win, either. 

To put it simply, a seller, in my view, has no right to control a market (outside of intellectual property cases, like patent law). The theory of the marketplace, supply and demand, is undercut when one person controls it.

[Bronty]

1 minute ago, Rick2you2 said:

one person

well, that's why you have a group.  Say....  a cabal?   

[Bronty]

29 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Four Bar exams, actually (a misspent youth). 

Evidence of intent is often circumstantial. A repeat pattern of bidding at auction until a price goes above some amount, if combined with a bidder’s holdings in which advertised prices are at least that amount, is legally relevant to show intent to rig the market. As to the ivory tower, anti-competitive legal actions are some of the most ivory tower cases out there— and, they don’t always win, either. 

To put it simply, a seller, in my view, has no right to control a market (outside of intellectual property cases, like patent law). The theory of the marketplace, supply and demand, is undercut when one person controls it.

And how are you ever going to gather any of that circumstantial evidence?

Buy and sells at auction houses are private and not ordinarily disclosed yes?  On what basis are you going to subpoena those records?    Dear Judge, I kinda have a hunch that I should have paid 50 bucks less for that last phantom stranger page?   I need you to violate everyone's privacy so that I can go on a fishing expedition?

In a world where Danny Dupcak still roams free..... ?

More to the point, you're starting with an assumption of nefarious intent.    What if I simply love Simonson Thor so much that I'm willing to bid 5k on every page?    And happily, that helps the value of every page I already own.    You're going to lock someone up for that?   Good luck...!

Edited November 11, 2020 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

And how are you ever going to gather any of that circumstantial evidence?

Buy and sells at auction houses are private and not ordinarily disclosed yes?  On what basis are you going to subpoena those records?    Dear Judge, I kinda have a hunch that I should have paid 50 bucks less for that last phantom stranger page?   I need you to violate everyone's privacy so that I can go on a fishing expedition?

In a world where Danny Dupcak still roams free..... ?

More to the point, you're starting with an assumption of nefarious intent.    What if I simply love Simonson Thor so much that I'm willing to bid 5k on every page?    And happily, that helps the value of every page I already own.    You're going to lock someone up for that?   Good luck...!

If you really want to get into the weeds, the law is pretty liberal on filing lawsuits and then giving people the right to demand records via “discovery” or subpoena to prove their case. You also misunderstand the word “intent” in most civil actions. It is simply the intent to do an act, which then results in a consequence. Once it gets “ nefarious”, we start talking punitive damages or criminal prosecutions. An intentionally false statement with intent to deceive, plus damages, is all you need for civil fraud. You do not have to prove evil motive or intent to cause harm. But I am not raising this to deliver a lecture on law.

When people bid, they operate on the assumption that bidders are bidding to win as part of an openly competitive market. If it doesn’t exist, it kills the process. Might as well go to a dealer where you know the price is pre-set (with negotiating room). Any form of market manipulation I consider wrong, be it shills, chandelier bids, collusion, or almost anything else which I consider “bad faith” in the market. That’s me.

[malvin]

17 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

If you really want to get into the weeds, the law is pretty liberal on filing lawsuits and then giving people the right to demand records via “discovery” or subpoena to prove their case. You also misunderstand the word “intent” in most civil actions. It is simply the intent to do an act, which then results in a consequence. Once it gets “ nefarious”, we start talking punitive damages or criminal prosecutions. An intentionally false statement with intent to deceive, plus damages, is all you need for civil fraud. You do not have to prove evil motive or intent to cause harm. But I am not raising this to deliver a lecture on law.

When people bid, they operate on the assumption that bidders are bidding to win as part of an openly competitive market. If it doesn’t exist, it kills the process. Might as well go to a dealer where you know the price is pre-set (with negotiating room). Any form of market manipulation I consider wrong, be it shills, chandelier bids, collusion, or almost anything else which I consider “bad faith” in the market. That’s me.

Let me wade in.  

I don't see what the issue is if someone with 500 Simonson Thor pages bids up each page to what he is willing to pay.  Even if their 500 pages are for sale.

Let's say I have 500 Simonson Thor pages for sale for $1K each (they would go for more I know).  It's wrong if I put in $1K bids on all other Simonson Thor pages up for auction?  I clearly think they are worth $1k and I'm bidding what they are worth.

How am I wrong?

Malvin

[tth2]

6 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Frankly, if someone ever went after the subject, it may qualify as a violation of anti-trust law.

In the absence of any other facts, I can say without a doubt that it won't.

Let's say I have a large number of Liefeld New Mutant OA pieces.  Do I not have the right to bid on other pieces that come on the market?  Do I not have the right to be lazy and just put in my max bid on Day 1, and challenge every other bidder out there to outbid me for the piece?  I don't necessarily crave the piece, but on the other hand I'm going to ensure that the piece ends up with me if no one else is willing to pay my max.  I am clearly a bona fide buyer.  What exactly is the issue?

Note that this is different from the kind of laddering that Burkey was doing, where (i) he owned the piece he was laddering, and (ii) he wasn't just ensuring he would win a piece if it ended below his max, but also that the winning price was reflective of his view of what FMV was for the piece.  If he thought a piece was worth $5000, the winning bid that would show up in Heritage's archives and on other price databases will be $5000.

This is different from simply putting in my max (e.g., $5000) and if the underbidder only bids $1000, then I'll win it for $1100 (or whatever the next increment is above $1000) and the reported sale price will be $1100, which means I'm not distorting the market price.  However, I am ensuring that no one else gets that piece at that price.

Even if this conduct was illegal (which it is not), it'd be unbelievably difficult to prove because you'd have to prove what the winner's intention was in winning the piece.   

Edited November 11, 2020 by tth2

[tth2]

5 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Four Bar exams, actually (a misspent youth). 

Evidence of intent is often circumstantial. A repeat pattern of bidding at auction until a price goes above some amount, if combined with a bidder’s holdings in which advertised prices are at least that amount, is legally relevant to show intent to rig the market. As to the ivory tower, anti-competitive legal actions are some of the most ivory tower cases out there— and, they don’t always win, either. 

To put it simply, a seller, in my view, has no right to control a market (outside of intellectual property cases, like patent law). The theory of the marketplace, supply and demand, is undercut when one person controls it.

We have a number of Boardies who are prosecutors or ex-prosecutors.  I wonder how many of them would be willing to take such a case?  I'm thinking it would be less than 1.  

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, tth2 said:

In the absence of any other facts, I can say without a doubt that it won't.

My comments were based on the assumption that there were other facts. Remember the Hunt Brothers attempt to corner the market in silver? They not only failed, and lost a ton of money, but were prosecuted for it.

For my own bidding purposes, there is enough gaming out there that I would rather assume the worst and be pleasantly surprised, then be   an optimistic bidder and get burned. I remember running into a someone a few years ago at a comic art show in which someone said he felt personally responsible for the high prices for Richard Dillion’s art. He bought a lot of it because he liked it. Apart from his taste, there is nothing legally wrong with that.

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, malvin said:

Let me wade in.  

I don't see what the issue is if someone with 500 Simonson Thor pages bids up each page to what he is willing to pay.  Even if their 500 pages are for sale.

Let's say I have 500 Simonson Thor pages for sale for $1K each (they would go for more I know).  It's wrong if I put in $1K bids on all other Simonson Thor pages up for auction?  I clearly think they are worth $1k and I'm bidding what they are worth.

How am I wrong?

Malvin

No, you are not wrong.

But what if you were Facebook and bought smaller competitors to protect your market? Or Visa, and wanted to buy a small competitor who specialized in internet payments that could one day protect you from competition with your credit card and high charges to merchants? On that last one, the Fed’s just stepped in and filed an anti-trust action to bar the sale because it was positioned as a way to reduce competition. Facebook is likely to face another lawsuit, which mirrors an earlier claim against Microsoft and resulted in a win for the government (but no breakup of MS obviously).

The specific facts in each of these cases is critical, and that is the “difference”. It isn’t just about “buying”. There has to be something more going on.

[ShallowDan]

11 hours ago, malvin said:

Let me wade in.  

I don't see what the issue is if someone with 500 Simonson Thor pages bids up each page to what he is willing to pay.  Even if their 500 pages are for sale.

Let's say I have 500 Simonson Thor pages for sale for $1K each (they would go for more I know).  It's wrong if I put in $1K bids on all other Simonson Thor pages up for auction?  I clearly think they are worth $1k and I'm bidding what they are worth.

How am I wrong?

Malvin

This is where I come down on this as well.  

There are some things that I value more than the broader market does (and am thus willing to pay above-market for, if necessary) and there are definitely some things that the market values much more than I do (leaving me sitting on the sidelines, wondering what the hell I'm missing).

With many pieces having grown significantly in value, it's easy to forget that comic art is still a relatively small/narrow market and one player can single-handedly establish a new floor.

[Bronty]

Deleted; it’s all been said.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Bronty

[glendgold]

18 hours ago, First Upgrade said:

That 'withdrawn lot' is no longer withdrawn...huh...

The new description has...a lot of passive voice.

I feel a worse person could make a joke here about a train wreck, but luckily I'm not like that.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by glendgold

[malvin]

7 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

No, you are not wrong.

But what if you were Facebook and bought smaller competitors to protect your market? Or Visa, and wanted to buy a small competitor who specialized in internet payments that could one day protect you from competition with your credit card and high charges to merchants? On that last one, the Fed’s just stepped in and filed an anti-trust action to bar the sale because it was positioned as a way to reduce competition. Facebook is likely to face another lawsuit, which mirrors an earlier claim against Microsoft and resulted in a win for the government (but no breakup of MS obviously).

The specific facts in each of these cases is critical, and that is the “difference”. It isn’t just about “buying”. There has to be something more going on.

But I'm not facebook or Visa.  We are just talking about people buying comic art, not companies buying other companies.

Malvin