Leo DiCaprio... collector?

[VintageComics]

Agreed. That's the first thing that crossed my mind too.

 

Still, even the rumor can be hurtful. That's why even though I sounded naive I was simply trying to offer the benefit of the doubt unless someone can prove otherwise.

[comicartfan]

I just saw that in the General Forum.

 

See, now that is a little better.

 

This could be crippling. Wow.

 

There was also this article back in 2004 that was much talked about on the boards.

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1227/156.html

[Thegoldenage]

There would have to be at least TWO people bidding high for the prices to skyrocket in an auction, though.. If he is involved in some way, who could be bidding against him? :think:

 

(hint: it's not me)

 

There are two. DiCaprio and the auction house.

 

That's not nice to say.

 

the truth is not always a nice thing

 

 

If someone has proof I'd love to hear it, otherwise saying negative things that are not true can be very damaging to a reputation.

 

I know that first hand.

 

 

I've said this here quite a few times before, but I'll say it again. Heritage allows it's employees and consignors to bid on it's own auctions. That information can be found in their terms of sale. Enough proof?

 

Oh I know that. That still doesn't mean they are doing it.

 

I'm not defending Heritage. All I'm saying is that innocent until proven guilty is usually the way things go, isn't it?

 

There is a lot of talk in other threads of shill bidding and auction houses driving prices up to astronomical levels and yet from my experience it's been two zealous bidders that drive the price up.

 

I'm not saying it couldn't or doesn't happen, but until someone comes up with some proof it's really unfair to talk about it in a negative way.

 

As a FYI, I don't put in a high proxy bid in ANY auction just in case.

 

I respect your opinion, and agree that false rumors can be very damaging to a company's reputation, but they are bidding on their own merchandise. In their terms they say they can bid, and in the article that was linked above, Rohan basically tells you they do. The reason that Heritage moved from Mass. to Texas was because Mass. law doesn't allow this, but Texas laws do. Therefore, when a bidder places a bid, Heritage (like any auction house) knows what that bid is and can push it up accordingly). The only auction house I am familiar with that expressly bans it's own employees and consignors from bidding is Mastro Auctions (now Legacy). ALL of the other's allow this behavior. I am not sure what additional proof you need.

[cheetah]

My understanding is that Heritage employees can place a bid prior to the auction but cannot bid during the auction itself.

[Speedy-D]

I think Rohan said that employees can place bids prior to an the actual start of the auction, but he did not expressly say that they can not place bids afterward. And that business with the fake name sounds so shady. Maybe it's not, but it just sounds nefarious.

[cheetah]

They should have just called it 'house bid' or some such.

[tth2]

The only auction house I am familiar with that expressly bans it's own employees and consignors from bidding is Mastro Auctions (now Legacy). ALL of the other's allow this behavior.

Ah yes, Mastro, that paragon of virtue.

 

[thehumantorch]

Interesting story. I generally withhold judgment when there is an ex-employee with a vendetta, though. I've been involved in that before and the truth often gets twisted.

 

Bidding in your own auctions bothers me though. I can deal with employees bidding prior to the auction beginning but having the guys with a financial interest in the outcome going at it pushes the line a little.

 

Someone is lying and after reading the article I suspect that the ex-employee is the problem. His story just doesn't ring true.

 

Regardless, I can't see any reason to have a fake bidding identitiy unless it is to bid on auctions. If a Heritage client wants to bid on an item he should do it himself. If a Heritage client doesn't want an item to sell below a certain amount he should set a reserve. If Heritage wants to buy items under auction to add to their inventory they shouldn't do it let alone bid under a disguised identity. Heritage states that the fake bidder ID is used for invoicing between it's two companies. Surely they could use normal accounting mechanisms for this practice rather than a fake bidder.

 

Christie's states that they occasionally bid on their auctions but when they do so it is stated next to that auction lot. Far better than a blanket statement that the auction house may bid on auctions.

 

[Aces]

Hes a goldenage collector.I believe he is[was] a Metro Client to. I think Steve told me he bought a Marvel # 1 way back. I believe his father was in the comicbook business in some way. I cant remember how.

 

His dad did an underground called Cocaine Comics or Cocaine Comix. Something with Cocaine in the title anyway.

 

I guess hes an advocate of going Green too. Environmentally speaking.

Yes, he flies around in a private jet to speak on behalf of environmental causes.

[Aces]

They should have just called it 'house bid' or some such.

+1

 

[Sqeggs]

Regardless, I can't see any reason to have a fake bidding identitiy unless it is to bid on auctions. If a Heritage client wants to bid on an item he should do it himself. If a Heritage client doesn't want an item to sell below a certain amount he should set a reserve.

 

Missing from the article is an explanation by Rohan as to why they are bidding on their own auctions. He is forceful in noting that they disclose that they bid on their own auctions, so everything is supposedly open and aboveboard. But where is the rationale for bidding on your own auctions? As a participant in an auction, it seems reasonable to expect that you are bidding against people who legitimately want to buy the book. Letting consignors bid on their own books should not be allowed because their only objective is to bid up the final prices of the books. Is Heritage bidding in the hope of winning and buying the books, or are they just intending to drive up the final prices? It seems to me that point should have been addressed explicitly.

[VintageComics]

This was posted in general for those of you that don't venture out there.

 

I have had the same experience with almost every auction house I have purchased items from, including Heritage. In my personal experience I have gotten pieces of art for well below my maximum bid from Heritage on a regular basis. The disclosure that employees are allowed to bid on auctions, and the assumption that this practice equates to letting those employees know what the maximum bid is ahead of time are two distinctly different things. That's a leap that I cannot make without actual proof.

 

Given my personal experience, I have been able to attain pieces from Heritage for far less than I was willing to pay. That's why basing this on a single person's experience is dangerous when we are talking about hundreds of thousands of items over the period of years.

 

I will be waiting to see what happens and what discovery comes out of this. That's going to be the only way to know.

 

The reason for my caution and my reluctance to believe this plaintiff based on an allegation alone comes from over a dozen years as an attorney and another seven years as a police officer. The worst witnesses you will ever find are those with an axe to grind for the person they are making the allegation against. They have motive and personal interest in seeing harm come to the defendant, they aren't there just to see the truth come out. That's why the law demands corroboration. Without it he could say that the owners of Heritage bankrolled the Manson family and we'd have to buy it.

 

I will wait and see what comes of this.

 

Best,

Chris

 

 

My feelings are that people need to turn the tables and think about how they would feel if the rumor mill began pumping out rumors about them with no real proof.

 

A lot of damage can be done with a small piece of misinformation and even if you are innocent the damage often cannot be undone.

 

I know this from personal experience.

 

Words on the internet are very easy to put out there and they can never be reeled back in.

 

I agree with this post in it's entirety.

 

(thumbs u

[KolmarAvenue]

um...thought this was a thread about dicaprio and his girlfriends and a heritage debate broke out. move along...

[VintageComics]

um...thought this was a thread about dicaprio and his girlfriends and a heritage debate broke out. move along...

 

I agree. This thread is useless without pics of his girlfriends.

 

[jimjum12]

This was posted in general for those of you that don't venture out there.

 

I have had the same experience with almost every auction house I have purchased items from, including Heritage. In my personal experience I have gotten pieces of art for well below my maximum bid from Heritage on a regular basis. The disclosure that employees are allowed to bid on auctions, and the assumption that this practice equates to letting those employees know what the maximum bid is ahead of time are two distinctly different things. That's a leap that I cannot make without actual proof.

 

Given my personal experience, I have been able to attain pieces from Heritage for far less than I was willing to pay. That's why basing this on a single person's experience is dangerous when we are talking about hundreds of thousands of items over the period of years.

 

I will be waiting to see what happens and what discovery comes out of this. That's going to be the only way to know.

 

The reason for my caution and my reluctance to believe this plaintiff based on an allegation alone comes from over a dozen years as an attorney and another seven years as a police officer. The worst witnesses you will ever find are those with an axe to grind for the person they are making the allegation against. They have motive and personal interest in seeing harm come to the defendant, they aren't there just to see the truth come out. That's why the law demands corroboration. Without it he could say that the owners of Heritage bankrolled the Manson family and we'd have to buy it.

 

I will wait and see what comes of this.

 

Best,

Chris

 

 

My feelings are that people need to turn the tables and think about how they would feel if the rumor mill began pumping out rumors about them with no real proof.

 

A lot of damage can be done with a small piece of misinformation and even if you are innocent the damage often cannot be undone.

 

I know this from personal experience.

 

Words on the internet are very easy to put out there and they can never be reeled back in.

 

I agree with this post in it's entirety.

 

(thumbs u

 

I've turned a profit on every book I ever got from Heritage....and they were all nice books, not junk. Many of them were 20-30 % less than my max bid. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[PreHero]

 

I've turned a profit on every book I ever got from Heritage....and they were all nice books, not junk. Many of them were 20-30 % less than my max bid. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I agree. Though, I don't really like that Heritage bids on their own auctions - they have a somewhat unfair advantage, since they don't have to pay the buyer premium. That being said, I've known about it for awhile and continue to bid.

 

I'm under the assumption Heritage bids to buy the book. I've never experienced any shill bidding - has anyone here experienced that first hand? I'm also under the assumption Heritage is bidding blind, i.e. thay don't know my max bid.

 

As you've experienced, I've managed to win a few books well under guide too.

 

PS - And on the original topic, Leo is a collector, I saw him at Metro's booth a few years back at SDCC.