Was KrazyKat the high bidder in Gus' Action 1 auction?

[comicnut]

Wow, I don't know about anyone else but I ran out of breath reading that post!

[nearmint]

Probably around the same time bluechip ran out of logic.

[bluechip]

Probably around the same time bluechip ran out of logic.

 

 

Nearmint you say the same sort of thing each time. No specifics. Just that I am crazy or wrong or that I'm the problem or that I ran out of logic.

 

Just tell me, specifically, how all this is logical, dxactly as it should be and has no room for improvement. And tell me how a person selling an Action 1 is supposed to use all this information to describe the relative value of his or her book.

 

Here is a slabbed 6.5

 

 

Which looks a lot like a slabbed 5.5. Because it is exactly the same book

 

 

So, grading’s a little uncertain, even when you’re talking about the same book graded two different times by the same company. A grade off is to be expected, some say. But, as some – or most – might say, the difference in a grade point can be a lot of money. With a book like Action 1, a point grade difference can easily be more than six figures difference.

 

But when you get into different books, the differences in grade can be even more difficult to follow.

 

Here’s a 2.0 that sold for 85K

 

 

Here’s a 3.0 that looks not as good as the 2.0

 

 

And here’s a 2.5 that looks more like a poor.

 

 

Aside from the difficulty in explaining to a buyer how any of the above is really consistent despite appearing not to be, you have to explain to them why an Action 1 is worth more than it says they are in the Overstreet guide. So what do you do then? Show them all the reports of prices that were much higher?

 

Here’s a poor (a really poor) and incomplete copy. Copies this typically can sell for what -- ten or even five percent of the guide “good” price? This sold for 22.5K.

 

 

But how does that gibe with the guide good (2.0) price of 42K. It just doesn’t. In fact most sales of Action 1 don’t gibe with the guide price.

 

Like the 2.0 above which sold for 85K?

 

(Yet how can you blame buyers for going to the “guide” and saying hey it’s only worth 85K if it’s in VG unrestored condition)

 

So what do you say then? Do you show them this book? It’s a 4.0 that sold for 190K several years ago.

 

 

Here are some slabbed restored books. To me these look almost exactly the same. Certainly the descriptions on the labels are almost exactly the same. And the description of the restoration done is, also, almost exactly the same. Yet the grades are vastly different. From 5.0 to 8.5.

 

 

 

 

And there’s an 8.5 out there which looks really nice and, well, about the same.

 

Of course not even that matches the grade of this:

 

 

It's up on ebay now for 1.1 million.

 

That's 1.1 million.

 

I think it may be worth it.

 

But I wouldn’t begrudge anyone who thought that 9.0 doesn’t really look any better than the others (even the 5.0)

 

Sure a layman can’t tell a true “grade” by slab. But even a layman can tell you that they look pretty much the same and, for being examples of the most famous valuable book of all, you’d think the labels could give you some indication why they’re so different, and once they’re in one of those slabs, with nearly identical descriptions, there’s virtually no way of telling what they looked like before. .

 

All of which leads people to think that when you say “restored” you could mean the work on the book went something like this:

 

 

And because I know people have that reaction, I would rather not have a buyer think that’s what happened when in fact, the “work” was more like this:

 

 

 

Maybe this is worth 1.1 million

 

 

But it's also restored and with a label that doesn't include all the work that everybody here would call restoration. And it has some weird color missing that seems to indicate something else happened which has not been "disclosed" (perhaps because nobody knows)

 

And it says it's the "highest graded of its kind" -- though most here would take issue with that phrase if they were gunning for the book. (they just aren't gunning for it)

 

That said, I don't think the book is necessarily overpriced. But the one we had up there was well over a million less.

 

 

 

[comicnut]

Umm, I'm not trying to take shots here but there was obvious cleaning between the 6.5 and 5.5 Action #1's in the first two (of many) pictures. Particularily look at the red in the middle of Superman's cape. In the 5.5 you can see how dirty it is, but in the other it is blazing red. Cleaning will do this to a book.

[brasseye]

......bidder in the Action 1 auction, you gotta admire his style.

 

 

NO COMMENT.

 

 

:o ...he posted here in the thread about himself :o

[tabcom]

Originally Posted By: bluechip

The bids never approached fair market value and were, in fact, far below any minimums agreed upon. As a “buyback” measure only, they did nothing to prevent a loss, because at best it meant making up the difference for the seller, or incurring incur additional fees.

 

Can you see how your idea of a 'buyback measure' can be interpreted as shill bidding? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for.

[nearmint]

Nearmint you say the same sort of thing each time. No specifics. Just that I am crazy or wrong or that I'm the problem or that I ran out of logic.

 

You're right, I'm not being specific. That's because for several days I was extremely specific, and your response was to ignore what was uncomfortable to answer. You are incapable of understanding how wrong you are about many things, so the idea of taking the time to be specific with you is about as attractive as the idea of banging my head against a brick wall.

 

Also, if I'm specific, you might respond with multiple scans of other Actions.

[brasseye]

......bidder in the Action 1 auction, you gotta admire his style.

 

 

NO COMMENT.

 

 

:o ...he posted here in the thread about himself :o

 

BANNED.

 

Dena took her sweet pretty time about it.

[minty_fresh-migration]

Originally Posted By: bluechip

The bids never approached fair market value and were, in fact, far below any minimums agreed upon. As a “buyback” measure only, they did nothing to prevent a loss, because at best it meant making up the difference for the seller, or incurring incur additional fees.

 

Can you see how your idea of a 'buyback measure' can be interpreted as shill bidding? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for.

 

Interpreted as? No conjecture about it, it was shill bidding, plain and simple. Bluechip can argue semantics all he wants, but that won't change this fact. He thinks a "mea culpa" makes it all better. Nope. His rep is permanently tainted, as it should be.

[bluechip]

Originally Posted By: bluechip

The bids never approached fair market value and were, in fact, far below any minimums agreed upon. As a “buyback” measure only, they did nothing to prevent a loss, because at best it meant making up the difference for the seller, or incurring incur additional fees.

 

Can you see how your idea of a 'buyback measure' can be interpreted as shill bidding? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for.

 

I answered that earlier, actually. Yes, I can, and that's why we withdrew the bids. Though we have seen many references to this type of bidding on the boards here. The intent was not to bid things up to our guarantees -- but as I said the complaints about that were fair enough, and that it was a mistake to let it happen.

 

 

[Transplant]

Originally Posted By: bluechip

The bids never approached fair market value and were, in fact, far below any minimums agreed upon. As a “buyback” measure only, they did nothing to prevent a loss, because at best it meant making up the difference for the seller, or incurring incur additional fees.

 

Can you see how your idea of a 'buyback measure' can be interpreted as shill bidding? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for.

I'm not the first to say it but BC's explanation doesn't make sense. The Action 1 had a reserve. BC says they put in a bid at a "buyback" price. But they knew the bid was below the buyback price. Therefore, it wasn't going to sell at that price. Ergo, the only reason for making the bid is to nudge others closer to the reserve at a quicker pace. My guess is that they felt a quick acceleration of price would help someone get wrapped up in the moment and hit the reserve.

[bluechip]

Originally Posted By: bluechip

The bids never approached fair market value and were, in fact, far below any minimums agreed upon. As a “buyback” measure only, they did nothing to prevent a loss, because at best it meant making up the difference for the seller, or incurring incur additional fees.

 

Can you see how your idea of a 'buyback measure' can be interpreted as shill bidding? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for.

I'm not the first to say it but BC's explanation doesn't make sense. The Action 1 had a reserve. BC says they put in a bid at a "buyback" price. But they knew the bid was below the buyback price. Therefore, it wasn't going to sell at that price. Ergo, the only reason for making the bid is to nudge others closer to the reserve at a quicker pace. My guess is that they felt a quick acceleration of price would help someone get wrapped up in the moment and hit the reserve.

 

I understand people thinking that, and it's often talked about here in regards to the quick rising prices on some consigned auctions at heritage and on c-link and on ebay, with people noting the same consigners' pieces tend to rise more quickly each time.

 

But these were totally consistent with the bids I used to have my partner place on anything we would be interested in. That meant we have placed many similar bids on auctions for other action 1s here on ebay, c-link and heritage, whether we know the seller or not. And it has always been the same pattern. My guy would place some bids up front until it got to where we'd take it, and then leave it at that. In this case, I stopped him much earlier than I would have if it had been one of your books.

 

Not to say that negates that bids shouldn't have been placed at all. I'll agree that people have a fair complaint about that.

 

It's just to say it didn't have even as much effect, if any, as it would've had if it had been your book or anyone else's on this board.

 

 

 

 

 

[Transplant]

But when you know that your bid won't take the book, why bid at all? You can't win it for less than the reserve and you don't sell it for less either. At one point you said that you implied that Gus owned the book.

[bluechip]

But when you know that your bid won't take the book, why bid at all? You can't win it for less than the reserve and you don't sell it for less either. At one point you said that you implied that Gus owned the book.

 

Right. I said there was not the best communication, so the bids were placed as they would be for any low actions (and he wasn't going to go as high as our minimums anyway).

 

As for Gus, we had a deal with Greg and Gus (thought nobody talked with Gus until after). To me that means he has a right to it under certain terms. They put up money and put out money.

 

We've let books go for less than we paid because somebody made a mistake and read the guide wrong, or didn't have the original invoice, etc. One I recall not long ago was a mint condition TMNT we let go for 200 bucks because of a mistake in reading the guide (the numbers aren't to the right but above the place you'd think it would be) We recognized the mistake pretty quickly and while the book was still not sold to a third party. but some of the other books in the package deal had already been sold, so we didn't think it fair to say we'd put the wrong value on that.

 

BTW, remember these bids were also withdrawn, despite the fact they were well below the current bids at the time. We had asked Greg about doing that days earlier, and he pointed out, accurately I am sure, that it wouldn't look good (and, he said, it didn't matter because they were so much higher by then). But we withdrew them anyway, which we knew would be reflected on the bid page and couldn't possibly help nudge anyone higher than they were willing to go.

 

 

[Shield]

Originally Posted By: bluechip

The bids never approached fair market value and were, in fact, far below any minimums agreed upon. As a “buyback” measure only, they did nothing to prevent a loss, because at best it meant making up the difference for the seller, or incurring incur additional fees.

 

Can you see how your idea of a 'buyback measure' can be interpreted as shill bidding? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for.

I'm not the first to say it but BC's explanation doesn't make sense. The Action 1 had a reserve. BC says they put in a bid at a "buyback" price. But they knew the bid was below the buyback price. Therefore, it wasn't going to sell at that price. Ergo, the only reason for making the bid is to nudge others closer to the reserve at a quicker pace. My guess is that they felt a quick acceleration of price would help someone get wrapped up in the moment and hit the reserve.

 

I understand people thinking that, and it's often talked about here in regards to the quick rising prices on some consigned auctions at heritage and on c-link and on ebay, with people noting the same consigners' pieces tend to rise more quickly each time.

 

But these were totally consistent with the bids I used to have my partner place on anything we would be interested in. That meant we have placed many similar bids on auctions for other action 1s here on ebay, c-link and heritage, whether we know the seller or not. And it has always been the same pattern. My guy would place some bids up front until it got to where we'd take it, and then leave it at that. In this case, I stopped him much earlier than I would have if it had been one of your books.

 

Not to say that negates that bids shouldn't have been placed at all. I'll agree that people have a fair complaint about that.

 

It's just to say it didn't have even as much effect, if any, as it would've had if it had been your book or anyone else's on this board.

 

 

 

 

 

But you didn't just bid on the Action 1 (that was for pre-approved bidders no less) but you bid on many of your other books. Then you changed your ebay handle.

[comicnut]

Holy cow guys, I'm in no way sticking up for him, but he answered that one already.

 

Read the whole thread.

[rockman2008]

But when you know that your bid won't take the book, why bid at all? You can't win it for less than the reserve and you don't sell it for less either. At one point you said that you implied that Gus owned the book.

 

BTW, remember these bids were also withdrawn, despite the fact they were well below the current bids at the time. We had asked Greg about doing that days earlier, and he pointed out, accurately I am sure, that it wouldn't look good (and, he said, it didn't matter because they were so much higher by then). But we withdrew them anyway, which we knew would be reflected on the bid page and couldn't possibly help nudge anyone higher than they were willing to go.

 

 

The bids were withdrawn because Bluechip and Gus were caught in the act of shilling by this forum. I'm sure Bluechip would like to portray his side of the events as somewhat innocent and accidental, but it's obvious to me that there was a lot of planning involved.

 

Earlier (before the Action auctions) Bluechip had placed a Detective # 35 which didn't get any offers approaching his target above $5,000. This is eBay item # 220209000118. After that Bluechip relisted with Gus and made an agreement to shill up to a price target above $5,000. Check out eBay item # 260220246512. This was shilled up to the doorstep of the price target but didn't catch anyone breaking the reserve. (Sound familiar?)

 

BUT in another eBay auction, item # 350036484713, the shilling did ensnare a buyer for his Detective # 29. So how come Bluechip didn't withdraw his bids here? Because this forum didn't catch him at the time. The Detective auctions were obviously a dry run of the same collusion used later on the Action's, proving there was planning and premeditation involved.

 

[ciorac]

But when you know that your bid won't take the book, why bid at all? You can't win it for less than the reserve and you don't sell it for less either. At one point you said that you implied that Gus owned the book.

 

BTW, remember these bids were also withdrawn, despite the fact they were well below the current bids at the time. We had asked Greg about doing that days earlier, and he pointed out, accurately I am sure, that it wouldn't look good (and, he said, it didn't matter because they were so much higher by then). But we withdrew them anyway, which we knew would be reflected on the bid page and couldn't possibly help nudge anyone higher than they were willing to go.

 

 

The bids were withdrawn because Bluechip and Gus were caught in the act of shilling by this forum. I'm sure Bluechip would like to portray his side of the events as somewhat innocent and accidental, but it's obvious to me that there was a lot of planning involved.

 

Earlier (before the Action auctions) Bluechip had placed a Detective # 35 which didn't get any offers approaching his target above $5,000. This is eBay item # 220209000118. After that Bluechip relisted with Gus and made an agreement to shill up to a price target above $5,000. Check out eBay item # 260220246512. This was shilled up to the doorstep of the price target but didn't catch anyone breaking the reserve. (Sound familiar?)

 

BUT in another eBay auction, item # 350036484713, the shilling did ensnare a buyer for his Detective # 29. So how come Bluechip didn't withdraw his bids here? Because this forum didn't catch him at the time. The Detective auctions were obviously a dry run of the same collusion used later on the Action's, proving there was planning and premeditation involved.

 

Very informative post Rock. Welcome to the boards.

[DrWatson]

Wow, I thought All My Children had all the drama. It couldn't hold this place a light.

[Stan-migration]

delete