Californication

21 hours ago, Bird said:

Okay, I have written the first draft of the email that I will send them outlining the issues and what I expect in return. I won't get into that here please. But yesterday's email was just essentially "hey this happened and I will be in touch about resolving the issue." I should have a pretty well written version by the end of the day (in fact I just thought about a better way to state something). So I don't expect news over the weekend but expect to have a response early next week. No response will also be noted. I'll keep in touch. I am focusing not only on my art but also their shipping practices so maybe this can have a positive resolution

Bird, I wondered if you had checked with other auction houses asking what their position is on (severely) damaged puchases (in preparation for the French auction's reply) Christies, Sothebys, Heritage?

The condition of the item sold, whatever it may be, is always an important part of any sale whether it is in the decription or not.  The item you received is cetainly not in the same condition of the item you purchased.  Was the parcel signed for as damaged?

What about distance selling regulations?

Also their insurance should be specific value based as many countries' postal services do not insure "collectibles" at more than face value. i.e. initial puchase price.

I would like to add that the ethics of this have gone well beyond Mike, who I genuinely believe was ignorant that what he has admitted to (bidding up to his undefined reserve) was wrong or would be so frowned upon by the majority of collectors.

If he or others bid upon his auctions to create an illusory fmv, that is a different matter.

 

How can making what you describe (correctly) as "ultimately a fake bid" have any other result than to contribute to an illusory fmv?

I was mainly giving my opinion regarding the situation where auction houses are not upfront regarding reserves and allow consignors to bid on their own auction. That is why I chose to post in the thread headed " Re: Question for Heritage and comiclink reps wrt Burkey admission"

If a consignor were to put into auction a piece they had paid $900 for and decided to place a notional reserve of $850 and were legally allowed to place bids on it rather than publish a reserve it would not necessarily create a false fmv if the piece did not progress beyond $850 but, the final bidder might still pay more than he need have done without the shill bids

When Mike mentioned that he was prepared to bid an item into profit if he believed it to have a much higher value than he paid for it, that is where he would cross the line into creating an illusory fmv. That situation, which more likely is a progression, might arise when he is unaware of how distasteful shill bidding is to us the majority. A combination of ignorance and habit.

Although I can see where my post appears contradictory.

I know as much of Mike as I have read here (plus purchase of 1 page from him about 8 years ago ) but I believe that no-one who thought they had transgressed, would write so openly admitting what they had done, additionally involving others.

When Mike posted here his guileless style leads me to believe he had no criminal intent.

I reiterate, my post is mainly a comment on the less than salubrious manner that the law allows auction houses to go about their business and not a defence or indictment of Mike.

However you look at it, a shill bid is ultimately a fake bid, an unsubstantive bid, a bid where the shill bidder has no desire to win the item they are bidding upon.

Putting FMV and comps aside, this described bid encourages a genuine purchaser to ultimately bid more than they might otherwise have to bid, which ultimately provides more profit for the auction house.

Auctioneers that allow it may describe it as " a bid to protect a reserve " unknown or known, but I believe that it is very much a confidence trick, even when described in the t&cs.

T&cs can change at any time. Heritage have many revisions in 2013 2014 2015, also how many people read t&cs or check for revisions before they bid?

In the UK, most of Europe and most developed countries shill bidding is now Illegal.

On the largest online auction house in the world, ebay, it is now illegal.

There have been many succesful prosecutions folowing shill bids on ebay auctions in the US as elsewhere.

Also, in parts of the US ( eg Virginia ) unsubstantive bids can be disregarded and the final bidder is allowed to pay the amount of the previous genuine bid.

Unfortunately for (comic art) buyers, the US still has major auction houses in some jurisdictions that class unsubstantive bids as legal.

But there are many unsavoury scenarios/practices that used to be legal in the US, and elsewhere, that now thankfully, are not legal - take a moment to make a mental list of a few - let us hope that shill bidding in auctions follows suit.

I believe ONE important lesson that can be learned from this is that genuine bidders never leave a proxy bid / ceiling bid, on either an online site, or with a b&m auctioneer, where shill bidding, sometimes described as owner or representative bidding, is not distinctly declared illegal.

I would like to add that the ethics of this have gone well beyond Mike, who I genuinely believe was ignorant that what he has admitted to (bidding up to his undefined reserve) was wrong or would be so frowned upon by the majority of collectors.

If he or others bid upon his auctions to create an illusory fmv, that is a different matter.

We have seen mixed messages from Heritage, in that they have written unsubstantive bids are both allowed and not allowed !

It is time for those remaining auctioneers that allow unsubstantive bidding to cease this con trick.

It would be nice to see some fresh t&c revisions from Heritage dated February 2016

Following these threads it would be helpful if Heritage made a statement regarding unsubstantive bids before their next auction.

I just stumbled across these posts (I don't visit all that often) and this is disappointing to hear.

 

I recently ended up with one of Mike's pieces in the last Heritage auction, one that I had eyed on his site for a while. During the auction I ended up bidding to just slightly less than the price he had listed at on his website; I ended up as the under-bidder for the item.

 

A week or so later I get a call from Heritage asking if I still wanted to buy the item at my last bid. I asked what happened to the winning bid but the representative said she did not know.

 

I ended up accepting and buying the item. I obviously was willing to cut the check so I am comfortable with the price I guess. What would be disappointing is if this item was bid up, with the the winning bid not really being legitimate and the winning "bidder" not being someone that actually intended to buy the item. Maybe I am niave to art collecting - it's not like I have an extensive collection - but it feels unsavory to me, legal or not.

 

Your situation might be the exact one that many posters in these threads are warning of.

I realise that you are at the moment somewhat comfortable with your "win"/purchase but I guess less comfortable since this debacle came to light.

If you intend to contact Heritage again regarding that particular lot the first question I would ask is: did the over bidder that backed out of actually paying for the page place multiple bids on that lot, so causing you to pay more than you might have needed to to win it if that particular party hadn't bid at all.

If the answer is yes = It looks likely you have suffered from the often illegal and unsavoury practice of shilling.

I have not read the t&cs of Heritage but what I have read elsewhere is that if the auctioneer is to allow bidding by or on behalf of the seller, proxy or direct, as is legal in some jurisdictions in the US, it has to be known by all parties prior to the auction.

As Heritage allow reserve auctions at a charge/cost to the seller I find it hard to believe that bidding on one's own auction without reserve is "above board"

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that if the members of Mike's shill group, shill for him, they will shill for themselves, and each other, and perhaps have their own group of friends. Where does it stop?

Shill bidding in auctions is always illegal in the UK. Maximum fine is 5000GBP / $7200

e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1292179/eBay-seller-fined-bidding-auctions-boost-price.html