PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[HarveySwick]

[Dano]

Buying from someone with a questionable seller's background reminds me of the women I've know that insist on dating the bad boy because they will be the one that is, "finally able to change him."

 

Dan

[jaybuck43]

For those looking for a clarification for what Chris was talking about see here http://www.tuffstuff.com/news/heritages-ivy-says-company-comimtted-no-violations Remember, a schill bidder is someone who has NO intention of paying for a winning bid. Heritage will pay if they are the high bidder.

[Bosco685]

For those looking for a clarification for what Chris was talking about see here http://www.tuffstuff.com/news/heritages-ivy-says-company-comimtted-no-violations Remember, a schill bidder is someone who has NO intention of paying for a winning bid. Heritage will pay if they are the high bidder.

 

I'm saving this material now so I don't have to dig again two years from now when this comes up.

[Bosco685]

Buying from someone with a questionable seller's background reminds me of the women I've know that insist on dating the bad boy because they will be the one that is, "finally able to change him."

 

Dan

 

[HarveySwick]

For those looking for a clarification for what Chris was talking about see here http://www.tuffstuff.com/news/heritages-ivy-says-company-comimtted-no-violations Remember, a schill bidder is someone who has NO intention of paying for a winning bid. Heritage will pay if they are the high bidder.

Captain Google!

 

[MetalPSI]

Exactly. I really try to pay attention to my interests and be fair in my dealings. I've seen many books I thought were fantastic deals turn into complete shills...

 

Case in point, saw a Sandman #1 with apparent Gaiman sig and sketch(He highlighted the eyes in pen) and the phrase "Sweet dreams" on the cover.

 

Pretty damn cool....but the bonus was the Kieth signature on the SECOND page, IDENTICAL to his sig on the covers of The Maxx series. Anyone who collects Keith knows he does not sign his books that way. Went into discussion with the seller about where they obtained the books. Reply was, " Some yard sale a week ago".

 

 

Why would this be a red flag? I own a stack of books signed by Kieth where he used his artist signature ...

 

Pics

 

 

I've had a bunch too...and I was the submitter on most.

 

 

 

Very nice and big sig...now lets compare

 

 

As far as I know, Kieth has never signed with all letters in full, EXCEPT on his ashcans...

 

I really wish I had saved that auction. You could totally tell it was forged.

 

Edit : Here are the two listing ID's 360764807182 and 360764805846.

 

The auction ended some time ago, but if someone savvy enough can do a google archive and maybe find the pics? It's been too long for me and .... screw it, call a spade a spade. I am lazy and it's not that important

 

Anyways, The seller is buckycap.

 

Here is the positive feedback. Wish I could get a hold of the winner...

 

Positive feedback rating tnx A LOT GREAT PRODUCT!!!!

h***h ( 9 )

04-Nov-13 00:18 Feedback conversation

SANDMAN #1 SIGNED by NEIL GAIMAN AND INSCRIBED "SWEET DREAMS" & SAM KIETH! (#360764805846) US $132.50

 

Sorry for going off topic.

Edited February 3, 2014 by MetalPSI

[MetalPSI]

Exactly. I really try to pay attention to my interests and be fair in my dealings. I've seen many books I thought were fantastic deals turn into complete shills...

 

Case in point, saw a Sandman #1 with apparent Gaiman sig and sketch(He highlighted the eyes in pen) and the phrase "Sweet dreams" on the cover.

 

Pretty damn cool....but the bonus was the Kieth signature on the SECOND page, IDENTICAL to his sig on the covers of The Maxx series. Anyone who collects Keith knows he does not sign his books that way. Went into discussion with the seller about where they obtained the books. Reply was, " Some yard sale a week ago".

 

 

Why would this be a red flag? I own a stack of books signed by Kieth where he used his artist signature ...

 

Pics

 

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18110&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18109&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18108&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=12685&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=19144&GSub=868

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=19143&GSub=868

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=16897&GSub=868

 

It's much rarer to see a Kieth CGC SS book where he didn't sign with his artist signature.

 

Nice collection. However you will notice that the sigs are not signed like they are in his OA as I stated...

[mschmidt]

Exactly. I really try to pay attention to my interests and be fair in my dealings. I've seen many books I thought were fantastic deals turn into complete shills...

 

Case in point, saw a Sandman #1 with apparent Gaiman sig and sketch(He highlighted the eyes in pen) and the phrase "Sweet dreams" on the cover.

 

Pretty damn cool....but the bonus was the Kieth signature on the SECOND page, IDENTICAL to his sig on the covers of The Maxx series. Anyone who collects Keith knows he does not sign his books that way. Went into discussion with the seller about where they obtained the books. Reply was, " Some yard sale a week ago".

 

 

Why would this be a red flag? I own a stack of books signed by Kieth where he used his artist signature ...

 

Pics

 

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18110&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18109&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18108&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=12685&GSub=870

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=19144&GSub=868

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=19143&GSub=868

http://www.myslabbedcomics.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=16897&GSub=868

 

It's much rarer to see a Kieth CGC SS book where he didn't sign with his artist signature.

 

Nice collection. However you will notice that the sigs are not signed like they are in his OA as I stated...

 

This is the book you mentioned:

 

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/sandman-signed-neil-gaiman-inscribed-477466753

 

 

 

I own multiple raw Sandmans signed by both Gaiman & Kieth ... done at various store signings throughout the 90s - they're all pre-CGC and their signatures look no different than the ones in the photos above (including Kieth writing out all the letters of his last name).

 

So, no, that isn't a forgery.

[Speedy-D]

For those looking for a clarification for what Chris was talking about see here http://www.tuffstuff.com/news/heritages-ivy-says-company-comimtted-no-violations Remember, a schill bidder is someone who has NO intention of paying for a winning bid. Heritage will pay if they are the high bidder.

Is that the extent of the distinction?

[jaybuck43]

Pretty much. Think of it this way. Let's say that it turns out that Larry Lieber has the OA cover page for Amazing Fantasy 15 (all of the pages besides the cover were donated to the national archives but no one knows who has the cover.)

 

So he shows up at Heritage and says he wants to sell. HA says ok we think it could fetch $750,000. at auction but we would like to own the page and we will offer you $500,000 cash right now to own it. Larry says thanks for the offer but I think it might get more at auction so lets go that way. So the page goes up for auction and I am furiously bidding (Trust me I need to own that cover) and NP Graham is bidding against me. Now lets assume this is a weak auction and I'm the high bidder at $475,000 with an hour left. HA was willing to go up to $500,000 so NP Graham bids $500,000 and now I drop out. HA (NP Graham) wins the auction and they get the page they were trying to pay for outright. Had I bid $525,000 and NP Graham dropped out it wouldn't have been that HA was just trying to bid up to some secret reserver, but rather they hit their maximum bid to try to acquire the page and bowed out.

[Bosco685]

Pretty much. Think of it this way. Let's say that it turns out that Larry Lieber has the OA cover page for Amazing Fantasy 15 (all of the pages besides the cover were donated to the national archives but no one knows who has the cover.)

 

So he shows up at Heritage and says he wants to sell. HA says ok we think it could fetch $750,000. at auction but we would like to own the page and we will offer you $500,000 cash right now to own it. Larry says thanks for the offer but I think it might get more at auction so lets go that way. So the page goes up for auction and I am furiously bidding (Trust me I need to own that cover) and NP Graham is bidding against me. Now lets assume this is a weak auction and I'm the high bidder at $475,000 with an hour left. HA was willing to go up to $500,000 so NP Graham bids $500,000 and now I drop out. HA (NP Graham) wins the auction and they get the page they were trying to pay for outright. Had I bid $525,000 and NP Graham dropped out it wouldn't have been that HA was just trying to bid up to some secret reserver, but rather they hit their maximum bid to try to acquire the page and bowed out.

 

This explanation does make a lot of sense. But it seems a slippery slope when a company or its employees can bid on their own auctions.

 

If they know of a potential buyer that may pay more in the future, it would make sense though if they are forced to do an auction, and decide as an investment to buy the item and wait it out.

[Speedy-D]

Pretty much. Think of it this way. Let's say that it turns out that Larry Lieber has the OA cover page for Amazing Fantasy 15 (all of the pages besides the cover were donated to the national archives but no one knows who has the cover.)

 

So he shows up at Heritage and says he wants to sell. HA says ok we think it could fetch $750,000. at auction but we would like to own the page and we will offer you $500,000 cash right now to own it. Larry says thanks for the offer but I think it might get more at auction so lets go that way. So the page goes up for auction and I am furiously bidding (Trust me I need to own that cover) and NP Graham is bidding against me. Now lets assume this is a weak auction and I'm the high bidder at $475,000 with an hour left. HA was willing to go up to $500,000 so NP Graham bids $500,000 and now I drop out. HA (NP Graham) wins the auction and they get the page they were trying to pay for outright. Had I bid $525,000 and NP Graham dropped out it wouldn't have been that HA was just trying to bid up to some secret reserver, but rather they hit their maximum bid to try to acquire the page and bowed out.

 

This explanation does make a lot of sense. But it seems a slippery slope when a company or its employees can bid on their own auctions.

 

If they know of a potential buyer that may pay more in the future, it would make sense though if they are forced to do an auction, and decide as an investment to buy the item and wait it out.

Yep. Or they could easily shill up auctions to increase final hammer prices, and be willing to pay if if they accidentally win. That's almost the same as jaybuck43's scenario, the only difference being intent. I didn't realize that intent (which I imagine is hard to prove) would be a decent defense.

[jaybuck43]

Speedy-D remember something important. HA makes its money off the buyer premium (plus the listing price from the seller). If HA wins the auction then *poof* there goes any profit unless they actually wanted the piece. Remember we are talking about in good faith bids. Meaning that HA or any auction house has no idea what your secret maximum price is.

 

Lets do some math. HA's terms require a 10% seller's commission plus a 19.5% buyers commission. That means any time HA wins an auction they don't intend to by bidding up they are losing 19.5% profit. (on a $300 final hammer they owe the seller $300. Then the seller owes HA $30. (So Ha pays out $270.) However that means that HA only got $30 on a $300 sale. Now if they had instead allowed the lower bid of $250 to stand they would have owed the seller $250 minus the sellers commission $25 plus a buyers premium of 19.5% ($48.75) So instead of making $73.75 by staying out of the auction, they make $30 by shilling it... So the practice costs them -$43.75. Doesn't make sense to take the risk.

 

Just FYI Christies actually does have confidential reserves and the auctioneer is allowed to place bids up to that reserve. No reserve auctions are indicated with an * when they appear in a Christie's catalog. http://www.christies.com/LotfinderSecure/LotFinderDocuments/CKS/7227/ConditionsOfBusiness.htm

[seanfingh]

 

At every live auction I have been to, the auction house has had proxy bids that they put in for the clients that got to preview the material before the public did. So I may bid $100, and the auctioneer automatically goes against me until he reaches the max proxy bid or I yell "Uncle." On some of the comic stuff I have seen, the proxy bids are insanely high.

[NP_Gresham]

Speedy-D remember something important. HA makes its money off the buyer premium (plus the listing price from the seller). If HA wins the auction then *poof* there goes any profit unless they actually wanted the piece. Remember we are talking about in good faith bids. Meaning that HA or any auction house has no idea what your secret maximum price is.

 

Lets do some math. HA's terms require a 10% seller's commission plus a 19.5% buyers commission. That means any time HA wins an auction they don't intend to by bidding up they are losing 19.5% profit. (on a $300 final hammer they owe the seller $300. Then the seller owes HA $30. (So Ha pays out $270.) However that means that HA only got $30 on a $300 sale. Now if they had instead allowed the lower bid of $250 to stand they would have owed the seller $250 minus the sellers commission $25 plus a buyers premium of 19.5% ($48.75) So instead of making $73.75 by staying out of the auction, they make $30 by shilling it... So the practice costs them -$43.75. Doesn't make sense to take the risk.

 

Just FYI Christies actually does have confidential reserves and the auctioneer is allowed to place bids up to that reserve. No reserve auctions are indicated with an * when they appear in a Christie's catalog. http://www.christies.com/LotfinderSecure/LotFinderDocuments/CKS/7227/ConditionsOfBusiness.htm

 

 

Except in an on-line auction where the auction house knows your hidden bid. HA auction takes your highest 'hidden' bid, then magically NP Gresham shows up and bid $1.00 less.

You may believe in magic fairy dust, but when the auction house is taking all the bids and lots end only a few dollars of the highest 'hidden bids" I tend to dismiss the 'good intent' excuse. And when did HA reveal the NP Gresham fiasco? Just as they were caught with their hands in the bidders pockets?

[jaybuck43]

Speedy-D remember something important. HA makes its money off the buyer premium (plus the listing price from the seller). If HA wins the auction then *poof* there goes any profit unless they actually wanted the piece. Remember we are talking about in good faith bids. Meaning that HA or any auction house has no idea what your secret maximum price is.

 

Lets do some math. HA's terms require a 10% seller's commission plus a 19.5% buyers commission. That means any time HA wins an auction they don't intend to by bidding up they are losing 19.5% profit. (on a $300 final hammer they owe the seller $300. Then the seller owes HA $30. (So Ha pays out $270.) However that means that HA only got $30 on a $300 sale. Now if they had instead allowed the lower bid of $250 to stand they would have owed the seller $250 minus the sellers commission $25 plus a buyers premium of 19.5% ($48.75) So instead of making $73.75 by staying out of the auction, they make $30 by shilling it... So the practice costs them -$43.75. Doesn't make sense to take the risk.

 

Just FYI Christies actually does have confidential reserves and the auctioneer is allowed to place bids up to that reserve. No reserve auctions are indicated with an * when they appear in a Christie's catalog. http://www.christies.com/LotfinderSecure/LotFinderDocuments/CKS/7227/ConditionsOfBusiness.htm

 

 

Except in an on-line auction where the auction house knows your hidden bid. HA auction takes your highest 'hidden' bid, then magically NP Gresham shows up and bid $1.00 less.

You may believe in magic fairy dust, but when the auction house is taking all the bids and lots end only a few dollars of the highest 'hidden bids" I tend to dismiss the 'good intent' excuse. And when did HA reveal the NP Gresham fiasco? Just as they were caught with their hands in the bidders pockets?

 

This is why you read the fine print. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ha.com%2Fc%2Fref%2Fterms-and-conditions.zx%3Fview%3Dterms&ei=qLfvUtzTGIrgyQHY14CgBw&usg=AFQjCNHLJJiyCaynf_nqk8O0Isuu1q0Mew&sig2=SI0vdw5rW__jLwB6gseQDQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.aWc read section 21. They may not state who the bidder is (and have no need to) but they do expressly state that employees and HA can bid on auctions.

[Sqeggs]

My understanding is that HA can only place house bids in their regular auctions held in Texas. I believe that regulations in CA and NY preclude their doing so for auctions held there.

 

My recollection is that HA has said that when employees place bids, they do so without knowledge of bidders' proxy maximums.

[comix4fun]

Speedy-D remember something important. HA makes its money off the buyer premium (plus the listing price from the seller). If HA wins the auction then *poof* there goes any profit unless they actually wanted the piece. Remember we are talking about in good faith bids. Meaning that HA or any auction house has no idea what your secret maximum price is.

 

Lets do some math. HA's terms require a 10% seller's commission plus a 19.5% buyers commission. That means any time HA wins an auction they don't intend to by bidding up they are losing 19.5% profit. (on a $300 final hammer they owe the seller $300. Then the seller owes HA $30. (So Ha pays out $270.) However that means that HA only got $30 on a $300 sale. Now if they had instead allowed the lower bid of $250 to stand they would have owed the seller $250 minus the sellers commission $25 plus a buyers premium of 19.5% ($48.75) So instead of making $73.75 by staying out of the auction, they make $30 by shilling it... So the practice costs them -$43.75. Doesn't make sense to take the risk.

 

Just FYI Christies actually does have confidential reserves and the auctioneer is allowed to place bids up to that reserve. No reserve auctions are indicated with an * when they appear in a Christie's catalog. http://www.christies.com/LotfinderSecure/LotFinderDocuments/CKS/7227/ConditionsOfBusiness.htm

 

 

Except in an on-line auction where the auction house knows your hidden bid. HA auction takes your highest 'hidden' bid, then magically NP Gresham shows up and bid $1.00 less.

You may believe in magic fairy dust, but when the auction house is taking all the bids and lots end only a few dollars of the highest 'hidden bids" I tend to dismiss the 'good intent' excuse. And when did HA reveal the NP Gresham fiasco? Just as they were caught with their hands in the bidders pockets?

 

 

 

I've been bidding, and winning, and losing, in Heritage auctions for over 12 years, and my anecdotal experience is 100% counter to your anecdotal evidence.

 

I've won items at at anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 of my max proxy bid and I've done so regularly.

 

And that information about bidding has been in their terms since the very beginning.

 

Sorry, but you aren't on point with most of what you said.

[comix4fun]

My understanding is that HA can only place house bids in their regular auctions held in Texas. I believe that regulations in CA and NY preclude their doing so for auctions held there.

My recollection is that HA has said that when employees place bids, they do so without knowledge of bidders' proxy maximums.

 

 

 

Given my experience bidding and my knowledge of their terms this is 100% correct.