Can OA prices be manipulated?

[Mister Trent]

Now, with the art market... YES! Absolutely prices can be manipulated. What's even funnier is that COLLECTORS can be manipulated. There are SOOOO many collectors out there that oooh and aahhh over CAF galleries that they decide what they like based on how many comments they see a piece get. WOW, everyone went nuts over that Romita piece. I really should get an example of Romita too.

 

There are very few examples of good comic art that is actually rare or important to the medium and even fewer collectors that make up their own minds and buy what they genuinely like as opposed to what they think they should like or what will make them "more popular" with the collecting crowd. In that way, we are very much like the "REAL" art world.

 

Ruben

http://www.collectingfool.com

 

I think there are quite a few of us who were actively collecting art before the advent of the internet, eBay and CAF.

 

Collecting in osolation, we collected what we genuinely liked (no internet forums to have our egos stroked by anyone). In fact, nothing's changed with me. I collect what I've always loved. If others endorse my tastes, that's great. If not, no worries, business as usual.

 

I'm sure there are lots of fickle (so-called) 'collectors' along the lines of those you mention . . . in fact, one of the funniest thins I used to see happen a lot (during my time with comicart-l) was the 'Grail Today, Gone Tomorrow' type of collector.

 

With much fanfare, an 'Art Day' would be proclaimed, in which the collector would have just taken possession of a 'Grail' item (the 'Grail' would usually be something mundane . . . to my mind at least). Within a few short months, lots of these 'Grail' items would be re-sold on a, "Circumstances beyond my control force a reluctant sale" basis.

 

I've watched this thread grow from a back-seat. Personally, there's no doubt in my mind that OA prices can be manipulated. Some of the biggest culprits are dealers.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've done lots of business with dealers, and there are lots of good guys out there . . . but greed seems to be the order of the day, as prices are pushed up to ever spiralling new heights.

 

You see something sell in auction one week . . . only to re-appear a short time later on a dealer's site at double the sale price. If that's not an example of price manipulation, I don't know what is?

[malvin]

 

 

You see something sell in auction one week . . . only to re-appear a short time later on a dealer's site at double the sale price. If that's not an example of price manipulation, I don't know what is?

 

Maybe it's semantics, but I wouldn't call that price manipulation. Everyone can put whatever price they want, it doesn't mean it will sell. If I put stupid prices on all my pieces on CAF, am I manipulating prices or just dreaming?

 

Malvin

[Mister Trent]

 

 

You see something sell in auction one week . . . only to re-appear a short time later on a dealer's site at double the sale price. If that's not an example of price manipulation, I don't know what is?

 

Maybe it's semantics, but I wouldn't call that price manipulation. Everyone can put whatever price they want, it doesn't mean it will sell. If I put stupid prices on all my pieces on CAF, am I manipulating prices or just dreaming?

 

Malvin

 

It's creating a perception of 'Value'.

 

For those not knowing the (recent sale price) history, it's likely that you will have collectors looking-in on a dealer's site and seeing the 'new art' that's been re-priced significantly higher than what it was just bought for.

 

Lots of these pieces do (seemingly) 'Sell' . . . only we're not privvy to the background information (e.g. cash sale . . . part-cash/trade . . . trade?).

 

All we see is a 'Sold' status affixed to the art.

 

To my mind, the auction price was FMV. If the art is bought by a dealer . . . priced double of what he just bought it for . . . then (seemingly) sells (without any of us being the wiser of the background history) I do believe this is an example of price manipulation.

 

Prices get pushed up . . . and those pieces that don't readily find buyers don't seem to come down in asking price, do they?

[Nexus]

I'm sure there are lots of fickle (so-called) 'collectors' along the lines of those you mention . . . in fact, one of the funniest thins I used to see happen a lot (during my time with comicart-l) was the 'Grail Today, Gone Tomorrow' type of collector.

 

With much fanfare, an 'Art Day' would be proclaimed, in which the collector would have just taken possession of a 'Grail' item (the 'Grail' would usually be something mundane . . . to my mind at least). Within a few short months, lots of these 'Grail' items would be re-sold on a, "Circumstances beyond my control force a reluctant sale" basis.

 

This can be observed ALL the time. I call this type of collector the "ADD Collector". I don't characterize this type of collector the same way Ruben does...I don't think they collect to be "popular". They may genuinely like what they're getting, but the feeling is fleeting. Soon, the "grail" is sold and it's on to the next shiny object. People can spend their money however they like. The problem is that they've often overspent to obtain their grail, and that amount becomes the new benchmark, regardless of what they end up re-selling for (often at a loss). So this capriciousness creates a false market value and unfortunately ends up affecting other collectors.

 

Having said all that, I don't consider the actions of any "ADD Collector" to be "price manipulation".

 

You see something sell in auction one week . . . only to re-appear a short time later on a dealer's site at double the sale price. If that's not an example of price manipulation, I don't know what is?

 

I agree with Malvin, I don't consider this price or market "manipulation" either. What I consider price/market manipulation would be two or more dealers in collusion with each other to raise market values. For example, trading pieces amongst themselves at ever escalating values. However, all that is nothing compared to what was one of the most blatant examples of price manipulation I've seen in this hobby: the "$44K" Ditko ASM page on ComicLink last year. This is where a Ditko page looked for all the world to have been shilled almost to the reserve...and then offered right after the auction for $46K. Because, hey, it got legitimate bids and *almost* sold for $44K so it's got to be worth a lousy $2K more, right? Forget the fact that no page had even come close to $40K before. Just insulting. I would recommend doing an archive search on the Comicart-L Yahoo group. Just type in "44K" into the search field. Very educational.

[Nexus]

 

 

You see something sell in auction one week . . . only to re-appear a short time later on a dealer's site at double the sale price. If that's not an example of price manipulation, I don't know what is?

 

Maybe it's semantics, but I wouldn't call that price manipulation. Everyone can put whatever price they want, it doesn't mean it will sell. If I put stupid prices on all my pieces on CAF, am I manipulating prices or just dreaming?

 

Malvin

 

It's creating a perception of 'Value'.

 

For those not knowing the (recent sale price) history, it's likely that you will have collectors looking-in on a dealer's site and seeing the 'new art' that's been re-priced significantly higher than what it was just bought for.

 

Lots of these pieces do (seemingly) 'Sell' . . . only we're not privvy to the background information (e.g. cash sale . . . part-cash/trade . . . trade?).

 

All we see is a 'Sold' status affixed to the art.

 

To my mind, the auction price was FMV. If the art is bought by a dealer . . . priced double of what he just bought it for . . . then (seemingly) sells (without any of us being the wiser of the background history) I do believe this is an example of price manipulation.

 

Prices get pushed up . . . and those pieces that don't readily find buyers don't seem to come down in asking price, do they?

 

I agree partly. People can ask whatever they want, regardless of what they paid for it. Auction prices may be FMV...AT THAT TIME. If auctioned again, it may go higher, it may go lower. I know a lot of collectors are pre-occupied with what a dealer originally paid for their art. To me, whatever they paid is irrelevant...it's either worth it TO ME or it's not.

 

However, I agree 100% about how perceptions of value are created via incomplete sales information. We all see the prices and when it's marked "sold" are led to believe that it sold for that amount in cash. In reality, as Trent points out, there may be a lot of other variables involved including trade. Or maybe even outright phony "sales" to create a false market value.

 

I've gotten to the point in my collection where I'm OK with walking away from anything. That's made this all a lot easier to deal with.

[Mister Trent]

I've sat in on auctions, here in the UK, alongside dealer friends.

 

On one ocassion, I saw a dealer bid up the price on some OA for no other reason than (he), "Didn't want to see Frank Bellamy art sell too cheaply". In other words, he wanted to keep prices high.

 

Another dealer, an American, once told me that he got lots of great buys for his inventory via Heritage. Buying art in auction for the specific purpose of re-offering the OA for a significantly higher price than what he just paid. By (subsequently) offering time-payments . . . part-cash/trade . . . all trade . . . the recent auction price is being manipulated steeply upwards and a phony 'value' is being created (IMHO).

 

Once a piece of art (seemingly) 'Sells', a new 'Value' is established.

 

That's how I see it anyway.

 

 

 

 

[r1982rhoads]

I have to say that the dealers are a source of price manipulation. If one raises a price, they all raise their prices. This isn't the stock or commodity markets, where new information causes prices to change in seconds or minutes. When Moy, Burkey, Snyder, or any of the other well known dealers (Excluding the Donnelly's) change prices upwards, within a short period of time (for the OA market), the other dealers follow suit. This could be days or weeks. But, the prices do change. All these guys have regular jobs, so they can't be checking prices everyday. But to say they don't watch each other websites on occasion and ajust prices accordingly is absurd.

 

To most people, especially newcomers to the hobby, the dealers are a visible source for pricing. Dealers have become to some the perception of reality, the setters of value. When a dealer buys a piece from a visible source and prices it for double or more, it does manipulate some into thinking that they have to hurry to buy a piece by this particular artist or storyline before they are priced out of the market.

 

[malvin]

Just to be a devil's advocate, even if all the dealers adjust their prices, that could be just reflecting market price. What kind of fool will keep his prices the same when everyone around him is charging double and it sells? That is just art prices going up, not market manipulation.

 

Malvin

[CollectingFool]

It's not just dealers. There are plenty of "collectors" that are buying and selling more actively than dealers. It's several people "building a market" and that can only be done when there is a decent amount of that art available. Kirby and Romita are among the most prolific artists in comics history yet their market was able to be built because there was a lot of the artwork available but funneled through only a few sources. Even if you think you're "buying what you like" you're only seeing what's being presented to you unless you go out of your way to seek out artwork that isn't commonly available.

 

Hoarding of course affects the market as does perceived pricing but a market can only be built successfully if there is a large amount of product and it's distribution is carefully controlled. It's almost systematic if you look at how the market works. Something gets chosen, it generates buzz and for a while the prices spiral up until a plateau is reached. As that item is reaching it's plateau, the next "underappreciated" item is found and the buzz starts all over again. It takes years of observation but I've seen the cycle too many times in too many hobbies to think it's a coincidence. Most of the time the people who eventually do the buying at the top of the market don't even realize the ride they've been on.

 

 

 

 

[Mister Trent]

Just to be a devil's advocate, even if all the dealers adjust their prices, that could be just reflecting market price.

 

Malvin

 

 

The market price, if a dealer buys in a high-profile auction, was the price he just won the art for.

 

Re-offering the art, a very short time later, at a considerable hike in price smacks of greed to me.

 

I've nothing against anyone making a reasonable or realistic profit . . . but seeking to double your investment so soon?

[Mister Trent]

I'm sure there are lots of fickle (so-called) 'collectors' along the lines of those you mention . . . in fact, one of the funniest thins I used to see happen a lot (during my time with comicart-l) was the 'Grail Today, Gone Tomorrow' type of collector.

 

With much fanfare, an 'Art Day' would be proclaimed, in which the collector would have just taken possession of a 'Grail' item (the 'Grail' would usually be something mundane . . . to my mind at least). Within a few short months, lots of these 'Grail' items would be re-sold on a, "Circumstances beyond my control force a reluctant sale" basis.

 

This can be observed ALL the time. I call this type of collector the "ADD Collector". I don't characterize this type of collector the same way Ruben does...I don't think they collect to be "popular". They may genuinely like what they're getting, but the feeling is fleeting. Soon, the "grail" is sold and it's on to the next shiny object. People can spend their money however they like. The problem is that they've often overspent to obtain their grail, and that amount becomes the new benchmark, regardless of what they end up re-selling for (often at a loss). So this capriciousness creates a false market value and unfortunately ends up affecting other collectors.

 

Having said all that, I don't consider the actions of any "ADD Collector" to be "price manipulation".

 

 

I never suggested price manipulation, here . . . that wasn't my intention.

[Mister Trent]

Even if you think you're "buying what you like" you're only seeing what's being presented to you unless you go out of your way to seek out artwork that isn't commonly available.

 

Speaking personally, my collecting interests were established long ago.

 

I don't think I'm buying what I like . . . I know I'm buying what I like.

 

And I've gone the route of tracking-down elusive artwork, long before the internet brought instant contact between collectors.

 

[Silow]

Sadly, its the people getting manipulated not the prices. OA is one of a kind and any price can reasonably be justified. When two people conspire to inflate an auction it manipulates data. This industry like all the other "blind" businesses need an honest and reputable watch dog. Don't be manipulated!!!

[TStrong-migration]

A watch dog would be wonderful but seems unrealistic. Who would watch the watch dog?

 

If you decide on a set price for a piece of artwork, you wouldn't need a watch dog. You'd bid up to that limit and stop there. It's hard to do, though, especially in a hobby like this.

[Mister Trent]

OA is one of a kind and any price can reasonably be justified.

 

So . . . several years ago a cover I liked came up for auction through Heritage. I didn't have the funds readily at hand to compete for the art. The cover sold to a dealer for $17,000. Co-incidentally, about a week later, the dealer (buyer) e-mailed me, asking if I wanted to buy or trade the cover from him for $32,000 value.

 

I said, "If I had that kind of cash on hand, I would have pursued the art when Heritage auctioned it a week ago."

 

So, tell me how you can (reasonably) justify a $15,000 price hike in the space of one week???

[Mighty Hal]

So, tell me how you can (reasonably) justify a $15,000 price hike in the space of one week???

 

In that situation, you're absolutely right, it's nothing but a money grab.

 

And I don't think that any price can be reasonably justified just because it's OA. That doesn't mean that sellers don't keep trying. I keep seeing eBay "Buy It Now Or Best Offer" that seem to start out at twice the asking price of comparable pieces.

 

By the way, Mister Trent, do you know if the dealer ever got his $32,000 asking price?

[Mister Trent]

So, tell me how you can (reasonably) justify a $15,000 price hike in the space of one week???

 

In that situation, you're absolutely right, it's nothing but a money grab.

 

And I don't think that any price can be reasonably justified just because it's OA. That doesn't mean that sellers don't keep trying. I keep seeing eBay "Buy It Now Or Best Offer" that seem to start out at twice the asking price of comparable pieces.

 

By the way, Mister Trent, do you know if the dealer ever got his $32,000 asking price?

 

The art changed hands with another dealer shortly afterwards. Call me an old cynic if you will, but somehow I very much doubt that a full asking price was involved.

[Silow]

Someone can ask anything they want. Thats not a manipulation. They can try to deceive the public by making that "money grab" but u were smart enough to know it went in auction for alot less. Its possible (but not likely in that auction) that it undersold and the dealer knew it.

 

I agree a watch dog would be tuff but its just hard to trust anyone these days.

[Lebowski]

Someone can ask anything they want.

 

Tell me about it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Unknown-SATANIC-Priest-Preacher-SATAN-Evil-GOTH-art-666_W0QQitemZ150152155574QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116

 

Is this considered market manipulation?

[Mister Trent]

Someone can ask anything they want. Thats not a manipulation. They can try to deceive the public by making that "money grab" but u were smart enough to know it went in auction for alot less. Its possible (but not likely in that auction) that it undersold and the dealer knew it.

 

I agree a watch dog would be tuff but its just hard to trust anyone these days.

 

The way I see it . . . in an auction situation, I like to think that collectors are competing for artwork destined to be cherished parts of their collections.

 

When a dealer competes for the art, he's looking to snag the OA (if not for his own collection, if he collects), to re-offer at some future point for a higher price.

 

Genuine collectors lose out . . .

 

Next time they see the art, the price will be jacked-up (with the opportunity of meeting the 'new price' through time-payments, trade/cash or trade) . . .

 

I see this process as a way of dealers pushing-up (manipulating) prices.