My auction question

[Bosco685]

Who knows?

Really good point Nick.

 

Ever since I heard about certain auction houses doing this, and wondering how real it is, it also made me consider if any employees involved have to sign a non-disclosure agreement that is so strict and threatening, we may never know.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

what i would have a problem with, is if the employee only bid to shill up to a "known" maximum... now, my understanding (from conversations) is that an employee bidding does "not" know what other proxy bids are, but I guess short of being on the inside, would be tough to confirm

Seriously? There are actual rules to this shilling with certain auction houses?

 

Who knows?

 

And that's the core of the problem.

 

You will often see books 'won' at a Heritage auction that appear again a short time later in different slabs. The Boy Comics (was it #17? ) that started off life as a 4.0, then went to 7.0, then ended up as a 9.0 is a prime example.

 

Was this won by the house, restored (yes, it ended up in a blue label, but you will never convince me that work that bumps a book from 4.0 to 9.0 is not restoration), and then resold?

 

Or was it a third party who kept on winning it and doing the work?

 

[Bosco685]

HOLY!

 

That is way too obvious. What a screwup on Heritage's part.

[Sal]

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate, and defend Heritage, just for some perspective.

 

 

Heritage is the single largest collectibles auction house. They do what, $100 million a year (more? a lot more? certainly not less) in sales of everything from fine art, to raw gold, to Elvis memorabilia to comics. They've developed a reputation for bringing in the most money for these sort of items, a notion that is extremely valuable and would be hard to win back if fraud were discovered. An auction house that defrauds its users doesn't stick around too long...

 

What I'm hearing here is an insinuation that Heritage allows employees to bid while knowing what the max proxy bid is that they are up against. Are we talking every lot in auction, or just those above a certain monetary threshold?

 

Let's assume this is true, and they are doing it to get more buyer/seller fees as well as continue their marketability as the auction house that brings in the most $$. Well, what is the risk? The risk is that they will be found out. Is that an acceptable risk, if one were to look at it objectively? Can we really say that Heritage is prepared to punt all that they've built up over the years in order to scratch out a few extra tens of thousands of dollars on comic-book sales?

 

 

It would be really easy to set up a system by which employees cannot see the proxy bids of us plebes. It would be even easier to make employees sign an agreement preventing them from bidding on items they know the proxy bids for. It would be monumentally stupid for them to bump up a copy of Boy Comics for the purpose of dragging in a few hundred extra dollars for their consignor.

[Bosco685]

It would be monumentally stupid for them to bump up a copy of Boy Comics for the purpose of dragging in a few hundred extra dollars for their consignor.

I get your very logical points. It would be dangerous to a company's long-term credibility.

 

What floors me more is someone may have potentially been able to take a 4.0 all the way to a 9.0 book. That is some amazing work.

[Sal]

It would be monumentally stupid for them to bump up a copy of Boy Comics for the purpose of dragging in a few hundred extra dollars for their consignor.

I get your very logical points. It would be dangerous to a company's long-term credibility.

 

What floors me more is someone may have potentially been able to take a 4.0 all the way to a 9.0 book. That is some amazing work.

 

I take it you haven't read this thread yet

[1koko]

He posted in it

[Bosco685]

I take it you haven't read this thread yet

Been a little while since I saw that thread, but the results are incredible.

 

But taking a 4.0 to a 9.0 - that is some amazing work that I didn't think could be done on a book.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I take it you haven't read this thread yet

Been a little while since I saw that thread, but the results are incredible.

 

But taking a 4.0 to a 9.0 - that is some amazing work that I didn't think could be done on a book.

 

'...and not deemed restoration'.

 

[Bosco685]

I take it you haven't read this thread yet

Been a little while since I saw that thread, but the results are incredible.

 

But taking a 4.0 to a 9.0 - that is some amazing work that I didn't think could be done on a book.

 

'...and not deemed restoration'.

 

I know long-term board members have been stating lately there is nothing much further to be discussed here, but WOW!

 

Thanks for the education how far a book can be taken.

[Sal]

He posted in it

 

Around here, that's not really indicative of having read it, is it?

[Flaming_Telepath]

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate, and defend Heritage, just for some perspective.

 

 

Heritage is the single largest collectibles auction house. They do what, $100 million a year (more? a lot more? certainly not less) in sales of everything from fine art, to raw gold, to Elvis memorabilia to comics. They've developed a reputation for bringing in the most money for these sort of items, a notion that is extremely valuable and would be hard to win back if fraud were discovered. An auction house that defrauds its users doesn't stick around too long...

 

What I'm hearing here is an insinuation that Heritage allows employees to bid while knowing what the max proxy bid is that they are up against. Are we talking every lot in auction, or just those above a certain monetary threshold?

 

Let's assume this is true, and they are doing it to get more buyer/seller fees as well as continue their marketability as the auction house that brings in the most $$. Well, what is the risk? The risk is that they will be found out. Is that an acceptable risk, if one were to look at it objectively? Can we really say that Heritage is prepared to punt all that they've built up over the years in order to scratch out a few extra tens of thousands of dollars on comic-book sales?

 

 

It would be really easy to set up a system by which employees cannot see the proxy bids of us plebes. It would be even easier to make employees sign an agreement preventing them from bidding on items they know the proxy bids for. It would be monumentally stupid for them to bump up a copy of Boy Comics for the purpose of dragging in a few hundred extra dollars for their consignor.

 

I understand the logic and admit that it's a strong argument against foul play. (thumbs u

 

However, apply this same logic to Jason Ewert. Here was a guy with a stellar reputation, who moved hundreds and hundreds of high value books, who was in with all the movers and shakers, who had been around for years, and had a business model that worked spectacularly well.

 

However, at some point (if we are to believe CGC's reasoning), he started trimming books to make a few more $$$.

 

Stupid? Monumentally so.

 

But he still did it.

[Comicopolis]

Employees (of an auction house) should not be allowed to bid on auctions - conflict of interest.

 

As I buyer I wouldn't use any site that I thought could possibly be using underhand tactics to sell their items.

[JvR11]

what i would have a problem with, is if the employee only bid to shill up to a "known" maximum... now, my understanding (from conversations) is that an employee bidding does "not" know what other proxy bids are, but I guess short of being on the inside, would be tough to confirm

Seriously? There are actual rules to this shilling with certain auction houses?

 

Who knows?

 

And that's the core of the problem.

 

You will often see books 'won' at a Heritage auction that appear again a short time later in different slabs. The Boy Comics (was it #17? ) that started off life as a 4.0, then went to 7.0, then ended up as a 9.0 is a prime example.

 

Was this won by the house, restored (yes, it ended up in a blue label, but you will never convince me that work that bumps a book from 4.0 to 9.0 is not restoration), and then resold?

 

Or was it a third party who kept on winning it and doing the work?

 

 

How the heck can you go from a 4.0 to a 9.0! I didn't think this was possible.

[JvR11]

Employees (of an auction house) should not be allowed to bid on auctions - conflict of interest.

 

As I buyer I wouldn't use any site that I thought could possibly be using underhand tactics to sell their items.

 

There are so many loopholes and ways around, it really is sad. I agree anyone with conflict of interest should not be allowed to bid...or should have to at least disclose they are bidding against you. This way you know what you are up against. Some of these auctions, are just being bid up so that you are paying a premium to net higher commissions and it's not right.

[Bosco685]

How the heck can you go from a 4.0 to a 9.0! I didn't think this was possible.

I'm with you. I never thought that was possible and still maintain a Universal Label.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

 

 

Seems like a lot of work for little return. I am wondering if the 9.0 is also the Church copy?

 

[Sal]

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate, and defend Heritage, just for some perspective.

 

 

Heritage is the single largest collectibles auction house. They do what, $100 million a year (more? a lot more? certainly not less) in sales of everything from fine art, to raw gold, to Elvis memorabilia to comics. They've developed a reputation for bringing in the most money for these sort of items, a notion that is extremely valuable and would be hard to win back if fraud were discovered. An auction house that defrauds its users doesn't stick around too long...

 

What I'm hearing here is an insinuation that Heritage allows employees to bid while knowing what the max proxy bid is that they are up against. Are we talking every lot in auction, or just those above a certain monetary threshold?

 

Let's assume this is true, and they are doing it to get more buyer/seller fees as well as continue their marketability as the auction house that brings in the most $$. Well, what is the risk? The risk is that they will be found out. Is that an acceptable risk, if one were to look at it objectively? Can we really say that Heritage is prepared to punt all that they've built up over the years in order to scratch out a few extra tens of thousands of dollars on comic-book sales?

 

 

It would be really easy to set up a system by which employees cannot see the proxy bids of us plebes. It would be even easier to make employees sign an agreement preventing them from bidding on items they know the proxy bids for. It would be monumentally stupid for them to bump up a copy of Boy Comics for the purpose of dragging in a few hundred extra dollars for their consignor.

 

I understand the logic and admit that it's a strong argument against foul play. (thumbs u

 

However, apply this same logic to Jason Ewert. Here was a guy with a stellar reputation, who moved hundreds and hundreds of high value books, who was in with all the movers and shakers, who had been around for years, and had a business model that worked spectacularly well.

 

However, at some point (if we are to believe CGC's reasoning), he started trimming books to make a few more $$$.

 

Stupid? Monumentally so.

 

But he still did it.

 

You're talking about one person (maybe two, maybe three).

 

 

Heritage is a larger organisation, with more potential for word to "slip out" and thus is exponentially riskier.

 

A conspiracy surviving for a while among a few is easier to believe than one lasting for ~7 years when shared among many, as is being argued here

[Flaming_Telepath]

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate, and defend Heritage, just for some perspective.

 

 

Heritage is the single largest collectibles auction house. They do what, $100 million a year (more? a lot more? certainly not less) in sales of everything from fine art, to raw gold, to Elvis memorabilia to comics. They've developed a reputation for bringing in the most money for these sort of items, a notion that is extremely valuable and would be hard to win back if fraud were discovered. An auction house that defrauds its users doesn't stick around too long...

 

What I'm hearing here is an insinuation that Heritage allows employees to bid while knowing what the max proxy bid is that they are up against. Are we talking every lot in auction, or just those above a certain monetary threshold?

 

Let's assume this is true, and they are doing it to get more buyer/seller fees as well as continue their marketability as the auction house that brings in the most $$. Well, what is the risk? The risk is that they will be found out. Is that an acceptable risk, if one were to look at it objectively? Can we really say that Heritage is prepared to punt all that they've built up over the years in order to scratch out a few extra tens of thousands of dollars on comic-book sales?

 

 

It would be really easy to set up a system by which employees cannot see the proxy bids of us plebes. It would be even easier to make employees sign an agreement preventing them from bidding on items they know the proxy bids for. It would be monumentally stupid for them to bump up a copy of Boy Comics for the purpose of dragging in a few hundred extra dollars for their consignor.

 

I understand the logic and admit that it's a strong argument against foul play. (thumbs u

 

However, apply this same logic to Jason Ewert. Here was a guy with a stellar reputation, who moved hundreds and hundreds of high value books, who was in with all the movers and shakers, who had been around for years, and had a business model that worked spectacularly well.

 

However, at some point (if we are to believe CGC's reasoning), he started trimming books to make a few more $$$.

 

Stupid? Monumentally so.

 

But he still did it.

 

You're talking about one person (maybe two, maybe three).

 

 

Heritage is a larger organisation, with more potential for word to "slip out" and thus is exponentially riskier.

 

A conspiracy surviving for a while among a few is easier to believe than one lasting for ~7 years when shared among many, as is being argued here

 

But those with the details of the proxy bids don't have to number more than a handful. Two or three would do the trick nicely and with the culture allowing employees to bid on auctions, they'd fit right in.

 

Additionally, employees are allowed to auction their own books off...and bid on them, I'm assuming.

[JvR11]

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate, and defend Heritage, just for some perspective.

 

 

Heritage is the single largest collectibles auction house. They do what, $100 million a year (more? a lot more? certainly not less) in sales of everything from fine art, to raw gold, to Elvis memorabilia to comics. They've developed a reputation for bringing in the most money for these sort of items, a notion that is extremely valuable and would be hard to win back if fraud were discovered. An auction house that defrauds its users doesn't stick around too long...

 

What I'm hearing here is an insinuation that Heritage allows employees to bid while knowing what the max proxy bid is that they are up against. Are we talking every lot in auction, or just those above a certain monetary threshold?

 

Let's assume this is true, and they are doing it to get more buyer/seller fees as well as continue their marketability as the auction house that brings in the most $$. Well, what is the risk? The risk is that they will be found out. Is that an acceptable risk, if one were to look at it objectively? Can we really say that Heritage is prepared to punt all that they've built up over the years in order to scratch out a few extra tens of thousands of dollars on comic-book sales?

 

 

It would be really easy to set up a system by which employees cannot see the proxy bids of us plebes. It would be even easier to make employees sign an agreement preventing them from bidding on items they know the proxy bids for. It would be monumentally stupid for them to bump up a copy of Boy Comics for the purpose of dragging in a few hundred extra dollars for their consignor.

 

I understand the logic and admit that it's a strong argument against foul play. (thumbs u

 

However, apply this same logic to Jason Ewert. Here was a guy with a stellar reputation, who moved hundreds and hundreds of high value books, who was in with all the movers and shakers, who had been around for years, and had a business model that worked spectacularly well.

 

However, at some point (if we are to believe CGC's reasoning), he started trimming books to make a few more $$$.

 

Stupid? Monumentally so.

 

But he still did it.

 

You're talking about one person (maybe two, maybe three).

 

 

Heritage is a larger organisation, with more potential for word to "slip out" and thus is exponentially riskier.

 

A conspiracy surviving for a while among a few is easier to believe than one lasting for ~7 years when shared among many, as is being argued here

 

It's not just Heritage that bids up books.