• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Art dealers struggling to get supply ?
0

65 posts in this topic

I write precis

5 hours ago, tth2 said:

My point is that I don't agree with your overly inclusive definition of "shill". 

What Batman Fan was describing is not shilling, in my opinion.  He's a bona fide buyer up to a certain price point.  I fail to understand how that can be a problem.  You might not be happy that he's out there, with the means and willingness to hoover up everything that comes to market up to that price, thus preventing you from getting any screaming bargains, but that's not my problem (nor his). 

Nor is he rigging the price, because he's not colluding with anyone to make sure that an artificially high price gets publicly recorded to maintain the "right" benchmark.  If he decides that he's willing to pay $10k for a Peanuts piece, and the underbidder only bids $5k, then he wins for $5500 (or whatever the increment above $5k is), which also becomes the publicly published price.  He hasn't set an artificially high benchmark price, and perhaps the value of the pieces in his collection will be deemed to drop in value as a result of this auction because the comp is now $5500 rather than $10k, even though he won the piece. 

Which is further evidence that what he's doing is not shilling.  

As I have said before, I write precisely. And when I write on matters touching on the law, it is based on specifics. There is nothing wrong with P’nutz bidding practices; I never suggested the contrary. In fact, I think that economically, it is good for the market. What can be illegal, but is not shilling, involves price fixing.

It can take the form of people not bidding so a particular person can win, or dealers bidding to maintain a market price (among other things). You are now in the legal area of anti-trust law and state laws governing anti-competitive conduct, which: (a) do vary, by location; (b) are highly dependent on the facts; (c) vary on enforcement efforts; and (c) can be tough to prove. Also, was there collusion among persons to take concerted action (which can be separately actionable as conspiracy). So, an action in, say, Texas, may be legal while being illegal and enforced in New York, and might be illegal in Illinois, but only if certain facts can be shown to exist that are not required in New York. Then, you have a whole second level of criminal or civil liability, if any, and who is empowered to act (the State or private parties, or both).

 I couldn’t possibly deliver an address on this subject—it is highly specialized, obviously complicated, and not even my field. The point is that there is no one sentence answer to what is permissible, legally, or not.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Browning said:

Every single topic on this forum should just be called “It’s All Because Of Shill Bidding” since that’s all every single thread turns into when Rick starts replying. I just get so tired of having this dead horse beaten in EVERY SINGLE ORIGINAL ART THREAD. EVERY. SINGLE. THREAD.

We get it: Rick knows for a fact that shill bidding goes on in every auction and therefore none of us should buy any original art because the price is either driven up artificially or driven down artificially and nothing is ever real. Everything wrong in the world is all because someone, somewhere is shill bidding our lives away.

I didn’t start it. I just respond because I don’t like being misunderstood or having people left with a false impression based on repeated statements by some boardies who are wrong. Finally, if you are going to engage in hyperbole as a form of ridicule, I suggest you more carefully read what I wrote. You might learn something.

These days, I think the bigger market  “threat” is a price bubble near the top end of the market. If dealers are bidding to add to their stock at high prices, and then raise their prices, how much new money at that end is available to buy or trade up? There still seems to be growth room since pieces keep selling at higher prices, but will things change as the Pandemic ends or we go into another recession? And perhaps it is time to stop treating this as a unified market on pricing. The bottom end in pricing seems to be doing well, with some things show growth and interest, others, not so much. 


 

Edited by Rick2you2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I write precis

As I have said before, I write precisely. And when I write on matters touching on the law, it is based on specifics. There is nothing wrong with P’nutz bidding practices; I never suggested the contrary. In fact, I think that economically, it is good for the market. What can be illegal, but is not shilling, involves price fixing.

It can take the form of people not bidding so a particular person can win, or dealers bidding to maintain a market price (among other things). You are now in the legal area of anti-trust law and state laws governing anti-competitive conduct, which: (a) do vary, by location; (b) are highly dependent on the facts; (c) vary on enforcement efforts; and (c) can be tough to prove. Also, was there collusion among persons to take concerted action (which can be separately actionable as conspiracy). So, an action in, say, Texas, may be legal while being illegal and enforced in New York, and might be illegal in Illinois, but only if certain facts can be shown to exist that are not required in New York. Then, you have a whole second level of criminal or civil liability, if any, and who is empowered to act (the State or private parties, or both).

 I couldn’t possibly deliver an address on this subject—it is highly specialized, obviously complicated, and not even my field. The point is that there is no one sentence answer to what is permissible, legally, or not.
 

 

"precisely" is the opposite of what you write.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2021 at 12:01 PM, Rick2you2 said:

A few years ago, a book was written called “Three Felonies a Day” by a former prosecutor. That is the average number of crimes the average person commits every day . . . 

I'm in the UK so have to satisfy myself with breaking three or more of the Ten Commandments . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0