February 2016 Heritage Auction

[batman_fan]

So no discussion about the HA auction ending this week?

 

Looks like a mix of some strong prices on some pieces already while other pieces at lower prices going into the end of internet bidding and the live auction.

 

One piece I placed a tracking bid on is still holding

 

 

Thanks Bill !

[Claudio]

Just looked it over and saw a piece that's way under market value that I would be interested in!

 

Oh wait... nevermind. I just factored in BP and sales tax...

[Bill C]

So no discussion about the HA auction ending this week?

 

 

I was wondering why there's no hubbub on the HA or comiclink offerings. Personally I'm digging the comiclink auctions more, there's a couple pieces and a comic there that I'd love to go after if I wasn't so focused on being responsible with my $ for once.

[Bronty]

So no discussion about the HA auction ending this week?

 

 

I was wondering why there's no hubbub on the HA or comiclink offerings. Personally I'm digging the comiclink auctions more, there's a couple pieces and a comic there that I'd love to go after if I wasn't so focused on being responsible with my $ for once.

 

Shock from Shillgate is probably dampening discussions, as well.

[jbud73]

ixnay on talking about eritagehay

 

some pieces I am interested in still look surprisingly affordable (which we all know is always the case before the live auction starts and is meaningless, but it keeps the dream alive!)

 

Malvin

 

Don't get too excited, these are not 'price discovery shills' we are talking about, these are 'reserve shills' and they have not even scratched the surface of their "BID NOW" live auction fervor. Its been a while since I won anything at heritage, I guess I'm too sane, or maybe not insane enough.

[suspense39]

I know everything can change once active bidding starts, but there is some really low hanging fruit right now.

[eewwnuk]

I know everything can change once active bidding starts, but there is some really low hanging fruit right now.

 

let me know which ones so I can bid! everything I'm watching seems to have healthy bids.

[suspense39]

I know everything can change once active bidding starts, but there is some really low hanging fruit right now.

 

let me know which ones so I can bid! everything I'm watching seems to have healthy bids.

 

im looking at some silver age stuff......thats all im going to say

[drdroom]

I know what you're looking at because I am too, and we're both gonna get smoked!

[AKA Rick]

It's interesting to hear what people are interested in and not, and I do feel the prices leading up to the auction's close are no indicators to the final valuation, since most activity on the Heritage auctions are live bids in person, proxy, internet or phone. You can't really "set it and forget it" with a bid today that's going to survive as the winning bid at close, generally without fear of overpaying or of course getting outbid if you're away.

 

I find opposite of shill-gate in that, I know many associates who converge to discuss the pieces they want and go over who wants whatever piece more so than the other person, respectfully, to avoid driving rates up like gentlemen and creating their own bidding war, forceably making one pay more than maybe necessary.

 

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close. It only works with close friends who also aren't so passionate and competitive.

 

I find that honorable among friends, and I know of course sellers consigning pieces may think otherwise since it impacts maximizing profit potential.

 

With that, that's usually the only time people discuss what they're interested in, in fear of drawing attention and worthy adversaries to compete for pieces... or of course those sellers consigning their pieces wanting to publicize the auction.

 

 

[suspense39]

sigh..............yep

[tth2]

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close. It only works with close friends who also aren't so passionate and competitive.

 

I find that honorable among friends, and I know of course sellers consigning pieces may think otherwise since it impacts maximizing profit potential.

Doesn't matter, because the seller wants to get at least $10K for it, and therefore will ask his buddies to bid at least $10K for it.

 

As a result, Bidder B's honorable actions end up being irrelevant.

[AKA Rick]

Doesn't matter, because the seller wants to get at least $10K for it, and therefore will ask his buddies to bid at least $10K for it.

 

As a result, Bidder B's honorable actions end up being irrelevant.

 

The relevance assumes a level playing field, and irrelevance of the sellers wants and needs with the absence of shill bidding or reserves.

 

 

[buyatari]

 

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close.

 

 

Reverse shill bidding !

[thethedew]

 

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close.

 

 

Reverse shill bidding !

 

Colluding, more like.

 

Not that I object, have done it numerous times myself with fellow collectors

- though others always wade in and make it expensive anyway.

[malvin]

That move totally makes sense among friends. I do it all the time. As you said, it doesn't work.

 

What sucks sometimes is a friend got too busy to bid!

 

Malvin

[miraclemet]

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close. It only works with close friends who also aren't so passionate and competitive.

 

I find that honorable among friends, and I know of course sellers consigning pieces may think otherwise since it impacts maximizing profit potential.

Doesn't matter, because the seller wants to get at least $10K for it, and therefore will ask his buddies to bid at least $10K for it.

 

As a result, Bidder B's honorable actions end up being irrelevant.

 

that's ok, the seller will eventually reach out to Bidder A and say that the winning shill "backed out" and see if they're interested at "shill" Winning Bid -$1.

 

Everybody wins!

Wait dang autocorrect

Only the Seller Wins!

[buttock]

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close. It only works with close friends who also aren't so passionate and competitive.

 

I find that honorable among friends, and I know of course sellers consigning pieces may think otherwise since it impacts maximizing profit potential.

Doesn't matter, because the seller wants to get at least $10K for it, and therefore will ask his buddies to bid at least $10K for it.

 

As a result, Bidder B's honorable actions end up being irrelevant.

 

Whoa, that's not honorable, it's collusion. It's basically the same thing Burkey's being crucified for.

[rotembk]

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close. It only works with close friends who also aren't so passionate and competitive.

 

I find that honorable among friends, and I know of course sellers consigning pieces may think otherwise since it impacts maximizing profit potential.

Doesn't matter, because the seller wants to get at least $10K for it, and therefore will ask his buddies to bid at least $10K for it.

 

As a result, Bidder B's honorable actions end up being irrelevant.

 

Whoa, that's not honorable, it's collusion. It's basically the same thing Burkey's being crucified for.

 

It might be collusion only if it encompassed all the potential bidders interested in an auction; which it doesn't. And even if it did, there are arguments it's in fact more likely to yield an overall more efficient allocation of resources where the total amount of resources is limited.

[buttock]

So, I know if one piece in question is up for auction, one person (Bidder A) says, "I'd pay up to $10k for it" and the other person (Bidder B) says "I'd pay up to $8k for it", then Bidder B would tell Bidder A that he's stepping aside from the auction and allowing Bidder A to go for it, even if that piece goes for $6k and Bidder B was willing to pay up to $8k, but knowing Bidder A would go higher, backs off during the auction and close. It only works with close friends who also aren't so passionate and competitive.

 

I find that honorable among friends, and I know of course sellers consigning pieces may think otherwise since it impacts maximizing profit potential.

Doesn't matter, because the seller wants to get at least $10K for it, and therefore will ask his buddies to bid at least $10K for it.

 

As a result, Bidder B's honorable actions end up being irrelevant.

 

Whoa, that's not honorable, it's collusion. It's basically the same thing Burkey's being crucified for.

 

It might be collusion only if it encompassed all the potential bidders interested in an auction; which it doesn't. And even if it did, there are arguments it's in fact more likely to yield an overall more efficient allocation of resources where the total amount of resources is limited.

 

Where did you get that idea? That would imply that shilling is okay as long as there's only one shiller.