Rick2you2

"trading cards are having a moment again in a big, big way...." http://www.sportscardradio.com/gary-moser-pwcc-marketplace-card-trimming-shill-bidding-scam/ https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/966830/the-shill-bidding-from-the-consignment-places-is-ridiculous https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Baseball-cards.pdf https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/iln/chicago/2012/pr0725_01a.pdf https://www.sportscarmarket.com/columns/legal-files/letting-the-shill-win It is all over the place. Worse than termites, and harder to get rid of.

No particular reason to "forgive and forget", since I don't see a stated willingness to change the bahavior going forward. If I missed it, shame on me. More like the distinction between robbing a candy store and committing murder. Both are wrong, but the punishment--or response--should "fit the crime".

Grapey, Cranberry juice is tart, but healthy, and if it improves the punch, then why not? I don't mind the comments if they draw attention to the seamy side of this hobby--only if they get personal do I find them objectionable. We regularly discuss fake art, and "trade-dressed alternative covers", so why not bad auction or other business practices? Me

Mike, I have said my piece above in response to the Captain, but that doesn't address the implicit threat to these boards that "serious collectors" should migrate elsewhere because some people have comments that aren't bright-and-shiny love stories about comic art. If people find your actions disturbing, then it is best to get the air cleared so we can move on. Allowing unaddressed claims just produces festering and long term damage to a hobby which I think is substantially dependent on a fairly narrow base. This is an excellent board and I hope it stays that way. And if people want to remain anonymous, that's their business. Frankly, I don't care, except I just don't want to have my in-box filled with even more ads and spam, thank you. Rick Baron

You seem to be taking an over-arching view of what I wrote; I did not say it has no effect on me. It does, but more so on bidding in general. Shill bidding is rampant, as is evident by a quick trip to Google News. Here is a tip of the iceberg. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2020/12/04/arizona-ag-sues-auction-nation-consumer-fraud-after-republic-investigation/3825400001/ So are other bad auction practices. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-auction-houses-wont-tell-you-2014-01-03. After a few more hours of reading, I have come to the conclusion that the run up of prices at auction sites is at least partially, and maybe substantially, illegimate. Yes, I understand that people buy collectables when the dollar effectively drops in value, and the excessive Federal debt load and private debt load should be having that impact, but inflation remains low with no major signs of increase. Housing stock is legitimately low, so prices have been rising there for good reason, but baseball cards and comic art? Really? An illegitimate run up in prices should eventually produce a drop in prices, but if not, I still won't contribute to it by paying what I think is too much. I see no good reason why pricing should legitimately be jumping past, say 2019 pricing, or earlier, and if that keeps me out of the market, I will survive. What I buy is not at the high end anyway, so my actions are not likely to be noticed. But, it should effect you and every other prospective buyer--perhaps, in the aggregate, the statement can be made by "we, the people". Getting to your specific subject, shill bidding is not rape. It is a bad economics practice that is generally illegal even while being rampant. We don't put people in jail for life for it, not even "serial" shill bidding. So, I look at how it effects me. If I see something Mike is selling that I want which I think is too high, then I would try to negotiate down to a lower price that I think is a fair reflection of its value. And since I will be seriously discounting auction pricing as a basis to set benchmarks, I won't generally agree to use them for what I want (unless backed up by a lot of other data I have found). Maybe he agrees, maybe he doesn't. If not, there is always another piece around the corner. He does score points for customer service and communications, so that factors into the equation, too, and no one has ever accused him of selling "re-dressed" art as alternative unpublished covers like "they who need not be named (again)". And yes, I do understand the legal concept of "falsus in uno" (False as to one, false as to all). But it must be viewed in context, and scope, which is what I am doing.

I don’t think someone should be demonizing Mike just because a market practice of his was attacked. He is a nice guy. But that doesn’t mean one can’t criticize or attack a market practice he has apparently used, nor does it mean the market practice is right. Shilling, I think we generally agree, is wrong. Driving up a market price by bidding on your own pieces to create or protect a price is a form of misrepresentation (at least where the winning bid becomes a price point, like with Heritage auctions). It taints all future sales by creating a false image of true demand, leaving too many eventually spending more than they should based on it. Let me add that I watched the sales prices for various Aparo art pieces pretty carefully the last few years, at auction, and there is no question in my mind that this type of conduct would have a real effect on prices, until the market became saturated with new product. So no, I don’t like it all.

I do believe it.

Did they make any limited edition Lego sets? If still in its original package, it should have a future.

Early handheld electronic toys, like Tomigachi’s, or if you can find one, those robotic dogs by Sony, AIBO.

Same site, usually, but not always, eBay.

Souvenirs of your youth. Like acquired panties.

Rule No. 1: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Rule No. 2: The more famous the the artist, the more likely it is a fake. I could probably fill a fireplace with all the fake Snoopy’s on eBay.

Personally, I like the stone throwing. Yes it is a “historical piece”, and a historical oddity, too. It reminds me, without being specific, that there are market shenanigans here in terms of pricing, and prospective buyers, particularly newer ones, should take it with a grain of salt. And despite the view of some, no, someone is not supposed to essentially act as a shill for their own merchandise whether they are caught or not, or whether it is illegal. That is the point of no reserve bidding, and I expect it breaks the house rules unless that conduct is clearly allowed. Maybe we all just need a basic class in ethics or “good faith”, and I don’t mean the philosophy subject. I’ve read Mike’s view on the subject, and I disagree with him. But, at least he was honest when he expressed it, and that deserves notice. I don’t bid in that weight class no matter what I can afford. But, I do think it causes an uptick in overall pricing, and specific artist’s pricing as well, so I don’t like it. How many times have I seen pieces sitting in dealer’s inventory for years, because an auction price was X, and the dealer thinks his piece is good or better? Quite a few. That’s bad for the long term of the hobby, and frustrating for buyers like me who just want to have a little fun. I’m no one’s nanny, but throwing a little shade, or light, on the subject is a positive good. I would ask, however, for some different examples and targets. This one has been chewed to death.

Pure opinion, if expressed that way, and clearly stating you are not claiming to be an expert, should not subject you to litigation anymore than saying you think a piece of art is "bad". Just express the facts as you see them. If you think something "may" not be legit because, in your opinion, some lines look hesitantly drawn, or you own a piece that looks almost exactly like it you had posted on CAF--so close it could be a tracing, again, if stated that way, it is only an opinion.

I know my view on this subject is in the minority, but I think too much money is invested in the nostalgia of a page instead of the quality of the art. Don’t apologize for buying it; it is for you to enjoy not sell. You have a nice piece.

Absolutely.

If someone offers to sell something that he labels as fake, but also offers to sell something which is not labeled fake, I think there is a natural inclination to think that anyone who would label another one of their products as fake must be honest as to the one which he does not comment about. But honesty doesn’t mean he can’t be stupid. He may think the one not marked fake is real when it isn’t. And yes, there is a market for fakes known to be fakes.

...unless, he thinks it’s a fake, but it’s real! Hoo ha!

The fact that he labeled the other card as a fake suggests to me he thinks he sold you a real card.

I don’t collect cards, but after reading comments like this, that is one scary collectible market.

Since we are on the subject, I am also finding a lot more repeat entries than I used to. For example, something will show up on eBay, but then get listed on CAT 2-3 times in the same search. It used to happen occasionally, but a lot more often now. Also, when I zoom into an image, and then leave the image, it doesn’t stay where I left off. It usually goes back at least several images.

Could you take a look at the slider again? I find that it doesn’t proportionately show how far down I have gone out of, say, 100 items.

You can probably get some good deals on Metamorpho art.

I think you need to consider sub markets in OA at this point. Hi flyers do look like they will continue to fly, but don’t forget the high level of debt the millennials have taken on and their interest in activities over things, They have also delayed their home purchases, even while prices keep going up, and even their startup into families. To the extent they develop an interest, all they will afford is the lower priced stuff—of which there is a lot. So while those $50,000 pieces continue, at least for now, I think you will see a decline in interest in the expensive but less well known artists/subjects. I would argue that some of the less publicized pieces, which aren’t doing so well at auction, or sit unsold are examples. Newer artists also represent a subcategory which should be viewed separately. Those should be reported more.

Let me add that when I typed in "Phantom Stranger", I saw it ended in 1990.