pinupcartoonguy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jerry-Robinson-pencil-on-paper-comic-art-Joker-/331822971941?hash=item4d4230bc25:g:8fwAAOSwSzdXA3v~

 

Seems fishy?

When ever I see something iffy, the first thing I do is see what else for sale. This guy has a bunch of Seuss and Schultz fakes. 'Nuff said.

It probably was a few years back. I remember the piece because my friend was eye-balling it! I also remember telling him for the about the same price he could get a commission from Enrich.

I thought I saw something similar at Anthony Snyder's booth in S.D. . . .

Do these sell? Are there people lining up to drop $10K for these? I am obviously not the demographic for this art as I can’t get my head around the price for what you get but I have to presume that there is a market but I am having a hard time understanding who it would be. I enjoyed Miller’s early DC and Marvel work but this does not stand up in my eyes. Are the die hard FM fans rushing to buy these?

It just takes one!

I think the seller's premium is higher if you have a reserve.

While Heritage may allow consignors to bid on their own auctions, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's only allowed if the consignor intends to WIN the auction. If the intent is to merely drive up the price, then it would still be shilling. A subtle but important distinction.

 

I think you are reading too literally. If the consignor would legitimately pay for the art with his bid of $y then in their opinion it's not a shill.

 

So it's not that they're in it to win it, more that they can say they'd willingly pay $z to get it back in their collection (including the juice and fees)

Just because a bidder would be willing to pay for the art, doesn't mean they intended to win.

If I place a bid at what I deem fmv, doesn't mean I intend to win the piece--my intent is that the piece achieve at least that amount. After all, don't most consignors hope that the piece goes beyond fmv?

While Heritage may allow consignors to bid on their own auctions, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's only allowed if the consignor intends to WIN the auction. If the intent is to merely drive up the price, then it would still be shilling. A subtle but important distinction.

I don't know whether it's been noted before or not, but Comiclink's terms and condition has a phrase similar to Heritage's, but with one big diference:

Regardless of the disclosure of his identity, any bid by a consignor or his agent on a lot consigned by him is deemed not to be made in “Good Faith.” Emphasis added.

The problem is on any given lot, it's hard to tell if there were any shinangans. Who knows how many people might have been involved in bidding stuff up?

Here we are on Tuesday, and it looks like no company is going to issue a statement on this because it opens them up to too much liability. The only way to get this fixed is for someone to file complaints with the authorities. And I think many of us aren't sure if our lots were directly affected. So we are hesitating to file those complaints.

 

The amicable start to a solution would be for HA to email each of us privately and confirm our lots were not from this consignor. (We would have to believe them.) And then those that got the red flag emails would have to decide for themselves whether to file complaints and possibly pursue collective or individual action.

 

The above step would at least settle down the unaffected buyers enough to inspire confidence in the upcoming auctions.

 

The alternative is ALL of us file complaints with the authorities while simultaneously emailing HA asking if any of our lots were affected. Maybe we should all pinky-swear to a deadline to do so? Thoughts?

 

P.S. ComicConnect and ComicLink should also get out in front of this. Email their affected buyers and state they will refuse consignments from this seller until an investigation is resolved.

 

I'm curious, assuming the auction houses had no knowledge that Mike was using friends to shill, under what theory would they be liable?

 

An affected buyer's transaction was with Heritage. If Heritage makes restitution to the buyer, Heritage should then try to recover that loss from Romitaman.

 

I see people in the other thread saying they are calling Heritage soon. The rest of us should follow suit with calls and emails... by Friday?

Who says Heritage is going to make any sort of restitution? And why would they be obligated to?

Here we are on Tuesday, and it looks like no company is going to issue a statement on this because it opens them up to too much liability. The only way to get this fixed is for someone to file complaints with the authorities. And I think many of us aren't sure if our lots were directly affected. So we are hesitating to file those complaints.

 

The amicable start to a solution would be for HA to email each of us privately and confirm our lots were not from this consignor. (We would have to believe them.) And then those that got the red flag emails would have to decide for themselves whether to file complaints and possibly pursue collective or individual action.

 

The above step would at least settle down the unaffected buyers enough to inspire confidence in the upcoming auctions.

 

The alternative is ALL of us file complaints with the authorities while simultaneously emailing HA asking if any of our lots were affected. Maybe we should all pinky-swear to a deadline to do so? Thoughts?

 

P.S. ComicConnect and ComicLink should also get out in front of this. Email their affected buyers and state they will refuse consignments from this seller until an investigation is resolved.

I'm curious, assuming the auction houses had no knowledge that Mike was using friends to shill, under what theory would they be liable?

They appear to be numbered prints.

 

Is that not okay? The thread is called "Art behind glass"

 

But not prints behind glass!

 

No harm showing them, at least you're getting an opinion as to what you've got.

It's art, just not original art.

In light of recent events where Burkey has admitted to shilling many consignments through one or more third parties, do your organizations plan on accepting future consignments from Mike? Do your organizations plan on allowing him to bid in your auctions?

 

Question for the group: will any of these revelations, and what the auction houses may or may not do in response, affect your willingness to bid in the upcoming auctions?

 

no qualms personally, but if it starts getting oddly high i will bow out.

 

I might not be playing in the field where this stuff occurs, though.

 

Seems like it's happening to everything from 3-figure pieces to low 5-figure pieces. My guess is that the higher up in price you go, shillers will be less likely to risk getting stuck with their piece and covering the BP.

 

From here on out, I'm only buying big ticket items.

The thing is, it's not just covering your backside for the piece at auction, it's also covering your backside for all the comparable pieces sitting on your site.

Well, that phone call was a bit frustrating. So when I went in on Friday to the floor auction and registered, the woman there asked if I had bid on their auctions before. I stated I had, she couldn't find my name and then asked if I had won any HA auctions before and I told her no. She was then able to find my account and I filled out another registration from for the floor auction. On it I checked the box that I wanted to collect the items at the Beverly Hills location. So this afternoon I called HA and was told the items from Saturday and Sunday's auctions are already on their way back to Dallas and that I should have notified them by Friday that I wanted to pick them up in Beverly Hills. Apparently the woman created a new account for me instead of attaching it to my online HA account. The woman on the phone today first told me the items weren't all in Beverly Hills, I told her funny but I physically examined them on Friday there. I told her she should pull my auction registration form I filled out Friday in Beverly Hills and she'll see I did check the pick-up box. So now I have to wait until it arrives in Dallas so they can ship it back to me here and pay to ship on top of the wait. Not very professional and probably my last experience with HA. I'll let others stick with the OA collecting.

I'd request they pick up the tab for shipping or in the alternative, have them ship it to the Beverly Hills office for you to pick up. Stuff goes back and forth between the office all the time, so it shouldn't be difficult for them to piggy back your art with another shipment.

Peanuts seems to have dropped . . .

Looks like they pulled the dubious Barks.

 

Do we know why the McCay panel also got pulled?

What's a little scary about the Barks being pulled is the fact that the description for the listing said that Russ Cochran vouched for the piece.

A Bill Ward fake.

I love the part that is highlighted in yellow: "Sold "as is" .... "All sales are final. SOLD AS SHOWN IN PICTURES. NO RETURN – NO EXCHANGE", as if that absolves him from the piece being a fake.

Two Bill Ward pinups just back from the framer:

I think that's a fair enough caveat. That said, I gave more than the $40 amount without any expectation of a commission.

I just gave.

Met? Or your living room?

You know, in the fine art realm, collage is a legitimate form of "art," and really this is no different and it's the published art. Just food for thought.

Who was the editor during the Miller/Janson run? Has that person stated anything on the record?

I was at Marvel in the late 80s. At the time, color guides were done on xerox copies, and then, if I recall, they would come back in color on acetate. Don't recall ever seeing black and white acetates.

Down in the morgue, there were a bunch of rolls of stats of complete back issues.

Now at Harvey Comics, the back issues were all kept as four-color separations (R, B, Y, line) on acetate, and I'm sure some of those were from the '60s.

As my wife would say, "Size isn't everything."