Rick2you2

I would agree for “good” pieces, but for so-so items, a high early proxy bid may knock out interest from others as the recorded price rises. They might otherwise hang around and take a last minute shot. I wouldn’t do it on an expensive piece, however, since the object isn’t so great to begin with.

That’s what I pretty much figured. Not a splash at all. It reminds me of the way Mercedes decided to call it’s line of 4 door cars with a fastback roofline coupes (designated as C with a number) instead of sedans ‘cause it sounds cooler.

Saw an upcoming listing in which ComicConnect is calling an oversized, non-bordered panel a “splash”. The panel does not, however, go all the way across the page or even just misses. It is roughly the same width but double the height of a regular panel (and nicely done). Is ComicConnect getting a bit over-eager to promote the piece, or can you really call that a fair use of the term when it doesn’t go all the way across? Personally, I don’t think it’s correct.

What the heck is FMV if people are looking for guidance on pricing based on winning bids where prices have been inflated by “assistance”?

I buy most things, like you these days, from auction sites, but also, private artists. I find most of the stuff on eBay are things I don’t want, and the prices from dealers are too much. Artists, however, tend to price fairly, sometimes low, and I like a lot of the newer work. I also think there is a bunch of material out there held by older collectors who are probably going to start, or continue, to sell off, and they will mostly land with an auction house.

I never said they were. That was an assumption someone made, and I went with it. In fact, I doubt they are. Heritage also provides excellent support, IMHO, advertises a lot, and gives fair descriptions of its product. Heck, BMW does something comparable with cars, and gets away with charging a premium price, too, despite long-term maintenance costs. The taint to their reputation of engaging in, or actively supporting, shilling could cost them their business model. A little tolerance, okay, but not so much as to cause reputational injury.

Sounds like a candidate for my thread on artists who don’t sell.

If you really want to get into details, you have to distinguish between direct cost losses and overhead losses. Businesses will put up with the latter in the short run to keep workers employed, but rarely take a hit willingly on direct cost losses. So, in context, they may be willing to sustain lost commissions, but won’t take it lightly if they overpay for a piece. That ties up their capital, too. As to your point, if they can crack a market, contractors will even take a small hit on direct costs. So, in reverse context, if a dealer, rep, or even an artist can effect a market price change for a product of which they have a lot of, price manipulation, and the cost of getting stuck with too high a winning bid, is not a bad deal. As such, if you see a piece by an artist who rarely has something put up for sale, be careful what you bid. It’s a prime candidate for price- influencing and may be the first of many to come.

I agree with you about that aspect of shill bidding—but it is our collective fault when we then buy it eventually. What doesn’t help is that these OA purchases are pretty frivolous. So people who have the extra money are willing to burn it. Let’s see how the worm turns now that the most recent employment report wasn’t too hot, and consumers are just starting to watch their budgets in the face of all the inflation.

Because they would have “overpaid”. Or the piece sits around forever waiting for the market to catch up and they lose the use of the money.

Fair point. But, it does undercut the willingness of people to buy at that auction house, and a house shill can’t be a winning shill on too many items without going broke.

Because sometimes, the shill wins. That means the shill has to pay for purchase. Were the auction house to let the shill off, that would be a form of fraud, as well as costing the auction house it’s commission. The one which makes me most suspicious is Catawiki. The way pricing patterns develop sometimes is disturbing, like a second counter bid only after I have placed a bid, after the item has sat dead for a long time. Another one up by me, another counter, and then, no action by me so it reverts to dead and stays there. Or, a single bid just shy of the estimated price, and then, no action. I tend to buy unpopular pieces, so movement on some of my targets when there are clear multiple bidders isn’t too common for me. In those cases, see Rule No. 1 and decide if you want it or not.

An impressive effort.

My understanding is that under Texas law, if the published rules of bidding for a particular company permit it, I believe it is permitted. Heritage auction rules apply Texas law.

Then let's change the word "rationale" to something like "hard dollar benefit"? The point I was trying to make is that the extermination of a people who occupy land that you want is a "time (dis)honored" (sic) practice, and presumably, since the Bible was written after events occurred, words were needed as justification (and G-d said...). Killing on the basis of a claim of racial/religious inferiority may mix into the equation (we want their land, but they were inferiors, so its okay)(as it did with our killing of Native American "heathens", or what the Spanish did in the New World), but not like the Holocaust (where Nazi's did expropriate Jewish property, but more as an extra than a goal). Sorry if this isn't clear.

In many cases, an employee is allowed to submit bids with the hope of not winning. That’s a form of shilling. But if the winner wins, despite his/her hope, I think they still have to honor it and pay. I think Heritage does allow employee bidding.

My apologies. According to the Bible, When the ancient Israeli’s were told by G-d to take over Canaan to settle the Land of Israel, he didn’t just order the Israeli’s to order their exile, but to leave nothing left alive—no men, women, children, even animals were to be killed. Supposedly, they were sinful. An extermination order is genocide, yet it was at G-d’s direction? In fact, it served the purpose of justifying mass killing for a clear purpose—preventing Canaanites from returning. There is no such rationale for the Holocaust.

Yes, I know. They just would have been more focused. They had an informal alliance with some Muslim groups, so they may have left them alone.

Nice artwork (save this thread!). Yes, the Holocaust was a product of Eugenics run wild, but I don't think that's true with a lot of mass slaughters. It was more about taking land and riches from the haves, while making sure they were in no position to reclaim it after they become have-nots. Luckily, I was not taught history in today's school system, I only recollect what my kids told me. As I recall from my days, we were herded into an auditorium and shown films containing newsreels of what was discovered in the death camps after they were liberated. I expect that if the Nazi's had been successful, they would have moved on to killing gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

Rule 1: highest bid wins. Rule 2: see Rule 1.

Did I mention the artwork in Maus is excellent?

Ahh, parents. The ones who are probably responsible for a healthy dose of the psychoanalysis needed by kids turned into adults? Or like my mother, who once told me, in so many words, that blacks should be treated equally to whites, and have the same opportunities as whites, but she didn’t want a family living next door? (Good thing my father never heard that.). Sorry, NO ONE gets the privilege to engage in bigotry, racism, anti-semitism or the like, except my dentist, and only if he has a drill in my mouth.

Sorry, but parents can be at least as fascist as school boards— some are worse.

I don’t agree regarding the use of “allegorical” material. Cartooning forces the reader/viewer to the focus of the subject. That’s why Thomas Nast and others made such a great splash. Boss Tweed, of Tammany Hall fame (the old NYC political machine) said that he hated the way Nast used to show him in prison garb because if the public got used to it they would put him there (and they did). Showing Nazi’s as cats and Jews as mice gets the message through. The more basic problem I have is with the way history is now taught. The focus on the way people lived instead of the way events and people shaped it undercuts the importance of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is, in essence, an event. By the way, I don’t agree with prevailing views that the mass killings of Armenians, starvation of the Irish, etc. should be equated with the Holocaust. They were brutal and indefensible, until you realize that humans have always behaved that way. Go back into the Old Testament, for example, and look at what Joshua did in Canaan after the Israelites came in. In the name of G-d, they exterminated 4 cities. What makes the Holocaust slaughter special was that it wasn’t just to take over territory or riches, but to deliberately wipe out a people. We didn’t even do that when we anthrax infected blankets to the Indians (oops, native Americans).