Manufactured Gold

[Bullet123]

Bullet,

 

Thank you for this latest post. While I disagree with your post, at least by posting specific examples of what you feel the problem is it gives us a place to start.

 

In response to your comments, I will take them one at a time:

 

I think their thought process is if their business practices causes a few people not to do business with them anymore, they will still have other people bidding on the auctions anyway.

 

Is that your opinion or is this last statement based on something you recieved from Heritage. If so, could you send me a copy of this correspondence?

 

First off, I would ask that you please remember what it is you have been claiming. You are claiming that I, and others, are taking rumors and presenting them as facts. Do you also have a problem with people voicing their opinions? If you read that sentence, it starts out with the two words "I think". That was me voicing my opinion. At no time did I try to represent my opinion as fact.

 

As far as where I came up with my opinion, it was during a phone call I had with Ed Jaster. I was talking to him about the Batman 1 I had bought. (The one where Heritage didn't mention that the back cover was nothing but a xerox copy and then refused to take it back.) He told me at one point that since the consignor had already been paid, Heritage was not going to take the book back. At some point I responded that I had been a long-time customer of Heritage and had spent over a million dollars in the last two years, and that I felt in the scheme of things Heritage should reconsider their position and take the book back. While I don't remember the conversation well enough to quote his response word for word, he responded with something to the effect of "Most of the comics you bid on in our auctions are key issues anyway. These books will sell regardless of whether or not you are participating in our auctions." He basically told me, that even though this was a mistake on Heritage's part (failure to disclose that the Batman 1 was in fact incomplete), that Heritage would not allow me to return the book, and if I didn't like it, I was free to take my business elsewhere. Based on this conversation, as well as some stories I have been told by other Heritage buyers, I formed the OPINION that Heritage is SOMETIMES willing to lose customers to make money in the short term, thinking (probably correctly so) that it will have minimal to no impact on their ultimate bottom line as a company. However, again, I must point out I NEVER said this was a fact, so I don't see how it strengthens your argument.

 

I truly think they overcharge quite a few people on interest.

 

On what basis do you make this claim? do you have a list of people that were overcharged?

 

Again, I used the words "I truly think"... my only "claim" is that I truly think what I said is true. this again was submitted as my opinion, not fact.

 

I based this opinion on the fact that they have overcharged me on interest more than once. The last time they did so in more ways than one. One way in which they overcharged me was to not credit a $189,000 payment I made to them until several weeks after the wire transfer was received by them. They continued to charge me interest during this entire time, which wound up being an extra $1200+. I made both the higherups and the accounting department immediately aware of the situation on multiple occasions. It took them SIX MONTHS to fix the situation. In this case I told them I did not feel comfortable making my final payement on that auction until they were charging me the correct amount. It took them six months to do this, and then they decided to charge me interest on the balance that went unpaid for the six months it took them to correct the situation.

 

My feeling was that if this sort of mistake was a one-time occurence, they would have tried harder to fix the problem faster. And the fact that they still charged me the extra interest afterwards led me to believe that I felt this was a bigger deal than they did. (If it were my company, and I had accidentally overcharged a customer in such a way, I would immediately fix the problem and I certainly wouldn't charge the customer additional interest as a result of the time it took me to fix the problem!)

 

After this happened I talked to a few friends of mine in the industry. One of them sent me a copy of a Heritage invoice he received, where he was charged interest equal to roughly 2% of the purchase price on the auction despite the fact that the auction was paid in full within 3 weeks of the auction's close. (Heritage charges interest at 1% a month which means that if the invoice he showed me was correct, Heritage overcharged him.)

 

I also base this opinion on the stories several other people have told me regarding similar experiences they have had with Heritage. I did not ask for proof every time somebody told me something, but given that I had undergone a similar situation, I figured what I was being told was probably correct.

 

This is the information that led me to this particular opinion. But again, I represented it as my opinion, not a fact.

 

I personally find it surprising that they are even allowed to say "your first payment is due on November 1st, but we are going to go back and charge you interest as of October 15th". They literally start charing interest before people even get their winning invoices sent to them. But I'm no accountant so I have no idea if practices like these are common or not.

 

There are terms which you agree to when you bid on items in an auction and for someone who spends that amount of money you would think you would take a little time to get to know them

 

Well then I guess its your opinion that I acted irresponsibly. Maybe I did. But I have to tell you, Heritage's terms and conditions are rather long. How many people who bid on their auctions actually read them all the way through?

 

How many people were surprised to find out that Heritage employees and owners choose to participate in bidding on their own auctions even though its written in their catalogs that they reserve the right to do so? I suspect I am not the only person to ever bid with Heritage without reading all of the fine print. But assuming that somewhere in the fine print they state that they have the right to charge you interest on your wins even prior to notifying you that you have won a particular auction, then had I taken an hour or two to read through everything and do some additional homework prior to bidding, then I would have known about the problem prior to bidding. If they do mention it in their fine print, you are absolutely right some additional research on my part would have been one way to avoid that particular problem.

 

But given some of Heritage's other business practices I guess i'm not that surprised that they'd try to squeeze every last cent they can.

What business practices are you referring to?

 

No one business practice in particular. Some of the things I suppose I was referring to include:

 

1) My personal experience with Heritage where they refused to accept a return on a comic that they misdescribed and failed to mention the book was incomplete.

 

2) Halperin's history of dishonesty and possible fraud discussed at length in the Forbes article

 

3) My experience with Heritage where they overcharged me on interest and I had to fight so hard to get it corrected. (see above)

 

4) Heritage's willingness to allow employees/owners to bid on their own auctions, which is wrong if for no other reason than it creates the appearance of impropriety.

 

5) Heritage's controversial involvement in the press/resub game. While I am not saying that EVERY book that passes through Heritage's hands a second time in a higher grade is the fault of Jim Halperin, there is no doubt that Heritage is involved in the press/resub game to some degree.

 

They hired Matt Nelson, to in part, help determine which books that come up for auction through Heritage are the best candidates to be cracked/cleaned/pressed/resubbed. At one point several years ago I almost consigned a few books to Heritage. I submitted among others, an Incredible Hulk 3 CGC 9.0 and an All Flash 1 that I had purchased raw off of eBay as a 7.5 that I had graded as a 7.0. It was suggested to me that the Hulk 3 could possibly be pressed into a higher grade. I find it hard to believe I'm the only client of Heritage's where this subject came up.

 

As a side note, the All Flash 1 managed to come back several grades higher than expected at 9.0, and several stress marks that I remember seeing on the spine when it was sent in to Heritage were no longer visible when I got the book back. At the time I knew very little about pressing, and chalked it up to defects being less visible inside the CGC holder, or me possibly remembering the book incorrectly. I won't say anything more than that on this subject, because anything further would be speculation.

 

Basically, when I made the comment, I was referring to the fact that in MY experience Heritage has at least occassionally been willing to throw business ethics and customer service out the window in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Again, this is only my experience.. only my opinion. Those that have had nothing but positive experiences with Heritage... excellent! Its not like a company can take advantage of every customer every time and still expect to stay in business. I'm sure plenty of people have had and will continue to have nothing but positive experiences with them. My experience has been different.

 

I have to be honest though Bullet, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I still don't see your point. You claimed that people are representing opinions as facts. Yet all the examples you pointed out, are me voicing my opinions as opinions. I'm sorry, but I don't see how they help your argument.

 

With that said, I appreciate you pointing out specific examples that you feel are cause for concern, and I hope that you continue to do so. I have gone to great lengths to never try to post something on this subject as a fact unless I can conclusively prove it. That is why your claims that I am trying to represent opinion as fact are so frustrating to me. If you are able to find any examples of me doing so, I would appreciate you bringing them to my attention so that I can apologize and edit that particular statement.

 

Filter,

 

if you read my original post, I said that my concern was that when new people come to these boards, they do not distinguish between opinion and fact and that creates a troubling atmosphere where they assume everything in print on these boards is fact. So when you expound on facts with your opinion when people read it days later or without reading the entire post, it can be taking out of context. Also, for the record, I do not like some of the things that are going on in this hobby, but I wish that posters would simply stick to the facts such as the side by side comparisons in the beginning of this thread. They speak much louder than the conjecture that follows. As a high grade collector, I am unhappy but do not wish to drag the entire collecting community into association with the people who are simply here for a quick buck and IMO that is what we do when we do not stick to the things we can prove, not the things we believe are true.

[Filter81]

As a high grade collector, I am unhappy but do not wish to drag the entire collecting community into association with the people who are simply here for a quick buck

 

Bullet,

 

On this point we are both in complete agreement. The majority of dealers out there are honest people, and I could name dozens of dealers I have had nothing but positive transactions with. (Bechara Maalouf, Esquire Comics, Bob Storms, Bob Dumas (Silver Comics), Vtcomics, and many others spring to mind.) I certainly don't mean to lump the entire hobby in with the small handful of people that I believe are behaving unethically.

 

However, I think the All Winners 1 example that I mentioned earlier is a real world example of how some of the behavior currently going on can have a negative effect on the hobby even without anybody discussing it. I know that there is nothing I can do to stop someone like Halperin from behaving unethically if he wants to. But by bringing some of what happens out into the open, at least it levels the playing field a little bit. And I think in the long run that can only be good for the hobby.

 

It sounds to me based on this last post that we both have the same goal (ensuring the long-term health of a hobby we are both passionate about), and have simply chosen to employ different methods.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Wow.

 

If ever a thread need be transferred into printed matter...it's this one.

[Red Hook]

I agree. This is a classic.

 

 

I'd even sign up for a limited leatherbound edition signed by Filter and Bullet.

[backtomarvel]

No doubt ... and it sounds like MasterChief is locked and loaded and ready to keep 'em coming when the time is right ...

[THE_BEYONDER]

[tth2]

I'm still waiting for an accounting of all these "baseless accusations" you and Bull keep referring to. So far, he's alluded to the "Eating with CGC" thread.

 

Wow.

Every single thread accusing Heritage of buying books and cracking and resubbing them. Despite all the talk and all the examples of manipulated books, you still can`t point to a case where it`s clearly Heritage that was the buyer and resubber. If you went to court with the kind of circumstantial evidence that suffices in your little kangaroo court, you`d be thrown out on your arse by the judge.

 

Every single thread accusing Heritage or Comiclink of shilling books up in price so that the buyer ends up paying at or close to his maximum price. What evidence has ever been provided, except very loose circumstantial evidence (to which many countering examples have been provided)? As I mentioned previously, how could behavior like this be kept secret in a business with so many loose lipped people?

 

Every single thread accusing CGC of giving certain customers, particularly Heritage, of preferential treatment.

 

Shall I go on?

 

 

And I initiated how many of those threads? And my posts accusing Heritage & Comiclink of shilling their books appeared where? And I accused CGC of giving certain customers and Heritage preferential treatment were in what thread?

Whoa, hold on Bradley, don't tell me you're pulling a JC and constantly moving the goalposts every time you get pinned down.

 

Below is the initial exchange between you and Bullet123 that led to your demand for examples of speculation. Nowhere do you say in that exchange that the speculation had to have been by you. In fact, Bullet's initial response was about "eating with CGC", which was most definitely not started by you (although I should point out that the person who did start that whole ridiculous line of discussion taints your side by association). The fact that you didn't respond with "well, I didn't start that thread/discussion" indicates that you were well aware that your query was not limited to threads/discussions started by you.

 

I quote:

 

Bullet123: It is the endless speculation based on nothing factual that annoys people like myself and Tim and I am sure others.

 

One example that both Tim and I have first hand knowledge of.

 

I have seen on more than one occasion people accuse Heritage of shill bidding their own auctions up to a persons maximum bid. If that were true, just from the bids I have placed personally my bill at Heritage would have been about $300,000 more for the last three years. That is just one bidder. I know Tim has had a similar experience because we have spoke about it. ( I can't speak to $ specifics for Tim as that would be me guessing but I am sure he can shed some light on the subject.

 

Redhook: With all due respect.....can you provide a link to that particular accusation? You say there are several places that's been stated. Where?

 

Also, what "endless speculation" are you referring to? Can you give any examples?

 

 

As far as I know....no one is taking Heritage to court. Even you have admitted there are lots of "dots" to examine.

 

These questions about Heritage fall squarely under the category of "caveat emptor". I would much rather have a situation where a potential buyer is overly cautious, than not careful enough. I don't think any of this is going to make a noticeable dent in Heritage's bottom line...do you?

 

I'm more concerned that any potential participant in any of Heritage's auction know exactly what concerns are out there and provided with a full range of the opinions on the situation, make their own INFORMED decision to play ball with them or not.

 

Brad, where have I ever denied that there are lots of "dots" to examine? And where have I been against collectors being fully informed and being highly skeptical of everything?

 

I'm just saying there is a difference between laying out the facts and drawing a conclusion that is not wholly supported by the facts. If you just stepped back a moment and read what you've been writing objectively, I think you'd be appalled that what you've written above basically says that it's okay to recklessly speculate harmful things about someone or their business so long as it's not going to make a noticeable dent in their bottom line.

[Viscosity-migration]

Just on a "violent" sidenote...forgive my digression (or another one from me)

 

If i'd spent TWO MILLION $$$ in business with Heritage, and then they refused to take back a FRAUDULENT item they sold me (Filters Batman# 1 comes to mind )

 

I swear on all that is Holy...Heritage would have no idea to the lenghts I'd go (not that Filter didn't, but he's most likely a much more docile man than I)... to make absolutely certain, I not only got my refund, but that they would also NEVER make that kind of "ethical" mistake again

 

That is utterly stunning, and IMO...MY OPINION...says VOLUMES about Heritage as a business entity in of itself

 

Enough so, that regardless of anything else i've EVER heard, or read, about Heritage, makes them guilty of simply being blood sucking vermin,... in my world at least

[tth2]

Whatever, Brad. I noticed you haven`t responded to my PM yet.

 

Anything I have to say to you on this topic I'm willing to say in public and for the record.

Oh, well played Bradley. You know perfectly well why I couldn't say publicly what I said in the PM, but you've managed to make it sound like I was using a PM to do something underhanded or particularly vicious.

[tth2]

I'll give you that as to Bronze. Silver, I don't know.

 

You could be right concerning how much Silver has been manipulated. But I see the FF #3/10, JIM #83, Hulk Ann #1, BB #28 and other SA examples over the last year or so and it makes me wonder how widespread the practice is within the genre...

 

Jim

 

What I meant is that I believe that silver age books were being pressed in significant numbers before CGC existed. There is no question that they're being pressed in significant numbers now.

Well, if you listen to old-timers like Lou Fine, they're pretty adamant that doing pressing alone is a post-CGC phenomenon. They acknowledge, of course, that pressing was done before CGC came around, but their strong belief was that it was only done in conjunction with other forms of restoration because prior to CGC downgrading non-color breaking creases so severely, there was no real financial incentive to only press a book. If such other forms of resto were done conjunction with the pressing (except for dry cleaning which CGC seems to be okay with) prior to the advent of CGC, you'd think that CGC would have detected the resto.

 

Disclaimer: I own slabbed SA books. In some circles, I have been deemed to have spent a "tankerful of money" on said SA books. You are hereby advised that due to such ownership, all statements that I have made above regarding SA books could reflect bias on my part arising from my motivation to preserve the value of my collection (large parts of which I am in the process of selling). Accordingly, you are urged to interpret all of my statements regarding SA books accordingly.

[action1kid]

Dont judge a persons character by how they act when everthing goes right.Judge a persons character by how they act when everything goes wrong.

This applies to business to. Hey even marriage.........

[comicwiz]

My take on the article, as I've said before, is that Halperin's explanations make logical sense to me and he even backs up one of his rebuttals on the main thrust of the argument with a letter from the former head of the FTC, who wrote that the FTC never should have targeted Heritage for what Certified Rare Coin Galleries did, because CRCG was merely a customer of Heritage's and thus Heritage had no control over CRCG. My take on the Forbes article is that the "journalist" who wrote it was trying hard to make the piece as sensationalistic and controversial as possible. It is not an unbiased, fair-minded piece and thus I don't view it as "journalism" so much as something intended to shock people and sell magazines. There may be some valid points here and there in the article, but they are hard to pick out amid all of the bias and anti-Halperin spin.

 

This is not to say that there aren't valid concerns about Heritage's auction setup, the crack-and-resub game, employee bidding, and other Heritage issues we've talked about before. I am simply stating that I do not view the article as anything other than a biased hatchet job, and certainly not as a fair-minded piece of journalism. The article is one step removed from something I'd expect to see in the National Enquirer.

 

Clear enough?

 

I can see your point on journalism that hinges on shock and awe spin.

 

I recently recieved a call from Forbes, and because of my suspicious disposition towards "journalists", not to mention the possibility that a competitor might be trying to disguise themselves as a journalist, I refused to conduct the interview without first having their contact info on hand to confirm their role with the magazine. This also allowed me to have a sneak peek at this journalists writing style, as I've learned over the years that some reporters find it quite fashionable to bash business.

 

However, when we are talking purely about the matter that the Forbes piece in question was touching upon, the FTC filings on the matter themselves speak volumes. I also agree with the notion that the person being targetted unfairly ought to have privileges to advance some form of rebuttal.

 

This said, I also won't make the mistake of confusing privilege with rights, as in my mind, the FTC settlement is in itself an admission of civil wrongdoing, and is the first place I would reference to form my own opinion on character.

[Monstro]

There are entierly to many words in this thread

[tth2]

At one point several years ago I almost consigned a few books to Heritage. I submitted among others, an Incredible Hulk 3 CGC 9.0 and an All Flash 1 that I had purchased raw off of eBay as a 7.5 that I had graded as a 7.0. It was suggested to me that the Hulk 3 could possibly be pressed into a higher grade. I find it hard to believe I'm the only client of Heritage's where this subject came up.

Well alright! At last we have someone offering first hand evidence of this happening! That's all Bullet and I were asking for! How come in all this time Filter is the first person who can personally publicly confirm that this happened?

 

Of course, you realize that this runs completely counter to Flaming Telepath's speculation that it would be much more beneficial economically for Heritage to simply buy the book themselves and press it up rather than suggesting that their consignors do it.

[tth2]

I have seen on more than one occasion people accuse Heritage of shill bidding their own auctions up to a persons maximum bid. If that were true, just from the bids I have placed personally my bill at Heritage would have been about $300,000 more for the last three years.

 

Just so interpret this correctly: are you saying that the "Heritage Bump" is a myth?

Here's a perfect example of speculation being repeated on the boards so many times that it becomes accepted as fact.

[Viscosity-migration]

At one point several years ago I almost consigned a few books to Heritage. I submitted among others, an Incredible Hulk 3 CGC 9.0 and an All Flash 1 that I had purchased raw off of eBay as a 7.5 that I had graded as a 7.0. It was suggested to me that the Hulk 3 could possibly be pressed into a higher grade. I find it hard to believe I'm the only client of Heritage's where this subject came up.

Well alright! At last we have someone offering first hand evidence of this happening! That's all Bullet and I were asking for! How come in all this time Filter is the first person who can personally publicly confirm that this happened?

 

 

Oh yeah, "1st" evidence? lord. Even WITHOUT Filter's FACTS!!! quite a leap one had to make with that "assumption" huh?

 

Wow, Hong Kong Phooney, you are... N U T S if you believe that type of "protocol" isn't practiced every, single, day...at Heritage

 

For a lawyer, you sure seem to think very little of the ACTUAL need, and transition, that is Circumstantial evidence

[tth2]

Sung to the tune of "Spam":

 

Bugs bugs bugs bugs

Bugs bugs bugs bugs

Bugs! B-u-u-u-ugs!

[esquirecomics]

Whatever, Brad. I noticed you haven`t responded to my PM yet.

 

Anything I have to say to you on this topic I'm willing to say in public and for the record.

Oh, well played Bradley. You know perfectly well why I couldn't say publicly what I said in the PM, but you've managed to make it sound like I was using a PM to do something underhanded or particularly vicious.

 

[Forbush-Man]

Boy, this thread has been a good read today! Whoot! Whoot!

[esquirecomics]

I'll give you that as to Bronze. Silver, I don't know.

 

You could be right concerning how much Silver has been manipulated. But I see the FF #3/10, JIM #83, Hulk Ann #1, BB #28 and other SA examples over the last year or so and it makes me wonder how widespread the practice is within the genre...

 

Jim

 

What I meant is that I believe that silver age books were being pressed in significant numbers before CGC existed. There is no question that they're being pressed in significant numbers now.

Well, if you listen to old-timers like Lou Fine, they're pretty adamant that doing pressing alone is a post-CGC phenomenon. They acknowledge, of course, that pressing was done before CGC came around, but their strong belief was that it was only done in conjunction with other forms of restoration because prior to CGC downgrading non-color breaking creases so severely, there was no real financial incentive to only press a book. If such other forms of resto were done conjunction with the pressing (except for dry cleaning which CGC seems to be okay with) prior to the advent of CGC, you'd think that CGC would have detected the resto.

 

I completely agree. Pressing as we currently know it only makes real sense in light of the CGC phenomenon. The grading system we utilized prior to the 10 point system and even before that when one really only considered 3 or 4 different grading designations truly didn't encourage pressing without other forms of unqualified restoration.

 

Disclaimer: I own slabbed SA books. In some circles, I have been deemed to have spent a "tankerful of money" on said SA books. You are hereby advised that due to such ownership, all statements that I have made above regarding SA books could reflect bias on my part arising from my motivation to preserve the value of my collection (large parts of which I am in the process of selling). Accordingly, you are urged to interpret all of my statements regarding SA books accordingly.

 

Does that mean we have to take you seriously as an unbiased commentator on GA books?