Rick2you2

Malvin, there is nothing wrong buying art you love, or buying a lot of it, or paying above market for it. The issue with those companies is that there is presumably some evidence they were bought to limit competition. That lets them rig prices. Now, there is obviously an evidence question: how do you prove intent. But that doesn’t go to the legal theories behind the issue. When a shill bids, he doesn’t really want the piece, he is just driving up the price. Same can be said for chandelier bidding, unless the terms of the auction permit it (some do). Or a new term I just learned: laddering. Those are unfair market place practices because they manipulate bidders’ expectations—an open market in which price is a function of demand. Furthermore, they can be illegal (sometimes civilly, sometimes criminally, or both). I don’t know what else I can say, except I think this is getting blown way out of proportion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not much reason to debate a subject I wasn’t thinking about. As for bidding early to force people to join the club, joining the club means you are providing price support for a piece by forcing others to outbid you. From my experience,I think that tends to result in a higher price along the pricing spectrum than I would like to pay by introducing early competition. I have inadvertently done that on a few occasions, for the reason you gave (drive out casual interest). Iknow you don’t intend to help the seller by doing so, but that is the result.

To be clear, by bidding early, I mean the first several days during the auction period. If we are talking about pieces in which competition is expected, I don’t see how bidding early helps you where there are live sessions afterward or proxies. The bid stays on top until someone bests it, but that won’t happen until the end of the auction when you get into the live bidding round. Forgetting to bid, that one I understand.

You're right; it doesn't mean there was an illegitimate bid. I track bid fairly often, when something first shows up. I will also sometimes throw in a bid just to see what sort of interest there really is in a piece (and maybe win it). But the effect on the ultimate winner is the same: it raises the base amount he/she will have to pay for the piece. It may have gone there anyway, but the bid locks in the floor. A bid I consider to be high is not illegitimate just because it is high. But a bid very early in the bidding process is something I will still consider suspect, even if bid for proper reasons. Particularly if the bid seems substantial and there is little or no follow up for some time.

I just read an article on “chandelier bidding”. Those could very well be fake bids designed to warm up the bidding. Why would anyone bid high in a bidding round which is going to last for weeks? That leaves way too much time for prospective bidders to out bid the high bid and become the highest bidder. Example, the aforementioned Phantom Stranger story shot up almost immediately to $5,000, and then, bidding stopped cold. If these were real bidders, that doesn’t make sense. Of course, this was also a featured piece, meaning Heritage has a particular interest in seeing it sold. Hmmm.... I will no longer pay attention to high early bids in a long auction— every reason for me now to think they were triggered by the house and not real bidders. I will simply assume this is a form of bid rigging and ignore it.

I like him, too. And I have no doubt others do things like this, too, or worse, like adding trade dress to drawings to make them look like unpublished covers. The point is that this is a rigged market, designed to suck out every last dollar it can from the innocent, over-enthused, greedy or dumb. Keep that it in mind when you bid and buy: and don’t swallow the “market price” as justifying a high price. That is why you will never see me spend $10,000 for a piece of art—not worth it.

You may want to read more about it in: “ “The Chandelier” in the Phantom of the Auction” at the website “Center for Art Law.” The author isn’t exactly right about the reference to the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC. While it is technically just a model law which states can adopt or not, I believe it has now been adopted in all states, although they have not adopted the same versions of it or have modified it occasionally.

Bargains are almost impossible to find if you are interested in making money, at least in the short run. The reason for this qualification, as I have said before, is that there is no good reason to buy based on what is popular purely for the sake of the art. With all due respect to Jim Lee fans, those who drool at “McSpidey” covers, or think anything signed by Kirby is worth almost any price, there is a lot of really good work out there for a lot less. Just walk away.

Please clarify.

Also, keep in mind that this stuff is just stuff, and not worth stress. So when I have seen pieces’ prices rise to a level I cannot understand marketwise, I walk away and don’t look back. There really are an amazing amount of talented artists out there, and I don’t feel any need to collect trophies.

I think you already hit it.

I get it. After performing a quick colonoscopy: Gene Colan. More pointedly, has anyone else use the tax code to help their collecting habits? Ideas? Not just things like junkets for dealers, but other ways. Goodwill Industries sells comics for $1.00 each when they get them. That’s more than a dealer would pay for some bargain bin material. Does that become the fair market value for tax purposes?

I basically bought every superhero title from the Big Two, ACG, and Archie, as they came out, and saved them, from 1969-1993, minus some books I didn’t like but would sample occasionally. I also had some earlier books I had saved. That is a lot of boxes, particularly after I later went back and bagged them. So, with some exceptions, like my Phantom Stranger issues and first series JLA, I didn’t and haven’t bought much. I gave a lot of them away to charity, sold some, and learned the hard way that books should not be stored in moist environments (only lost about 1,000-1,500 that way), os so close together mice may get into them. Also kept several thousand. Currently, I still buy but rarely read; if books don’t sell, there is no art to buy. Keep that in mind fellow collectors.

Nah. Too constipated.

On a related note, this is a good way to get rid of comic art you don’t really want. I once had to buy a three page set of Gene Colon pages to get the one page I wanted. I also knew the other two pages wouldn’t command much interest (like a lot of what Anthony’s sells). So, two went to charity, and I took a nice deduction for their FMV— not the same thing as being able to sell something at an estimated FMV.

Well, yes. It’s been an annoying distraction from more important things, like how to practice good dental hygiene.

I still haven’t been able to find a Phantom Stranger, even after his movie short. ☹️

By the way, what makes you think a Certificate of Authenticity is real? If you google it, you can buy lots of blank forms.

Don’t know the answer, but they weren’t tied to a bed.