• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

February 2016 Heritage Auction

Started by batman_fan,

400 posts in this topic

rotembk

rotembk

Posted
Posted
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.

 

No, because in an auction one shiller is enough to raise the price above the actual FMV as there's no 'down vote' option. On the other hand, as others already explained, if two people decide not to bid against one another, the effect will be meaningless where there are other participants who can bid as they want. Hence my statement that you need all potential participants to coordinate together in order to achieve the same distorted effect as in the shilling scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malvin

malvin

Posted
Posted

 

It might be collusion only if it encompassed...

 

No, its collusion. It doesn't have to work for it to be "conspiracy to cheat or deceive."

 

No one is obligated to bid on a lot in an auction.

 

This reminds me of an article about auction shenanigans that was posted here a few years ago. The article said something to the effect that auction houses know when people collude to not bid on things and they stop it. I still haven't figured out what exactly they do. They can't make someone bid!

 

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rotembk

rotembk

Posted
Posted

 

It might be collusion only if it encompassed...

 

No, its collusion. It doesn't have to work for it to be "conspiracy to cheat or deceive."

 

No one is obligated to bid on a lot in an auction.

 

This reminds me of an article about auction shenanigans that was posted here a few years ago. The article said something to the effect that auction houses know when people collude to not bid on things and they stop it. I still haven't figured out what exactly they do. They can't make someone bid!

 

Malvin

 

They post on boards such as this soliciting non-bid arrangements and then have their employees bid up the auction accordingly? (shrug)

 

U6q9uAJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J.Sid

J.Sid

Posted
Posted

 

It might be collusion only if it encompassed...

 

No, its collusion. It doesn't have to work for it to be "conspiracy to cheat or deceive."

 

No one is obligated to bid on a lot in an auction.

 

I agree that it would be tough/impossible to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rotembk

rotembk

Posted
Posted
But I suppose they could suspend your account at any time.

 

Well, if they suspend your account then you will certainly not be able to bid, which seems to be counterproductive.

 

In any event, look at at it this way; let's say Collector X and Collector Y live close by and have very similar tastes. Nothing prevents them from deciding to pool their resources and act as a joint venture in making acquisitions (they can even form a legal entity for that purpose and store the art in facilities held by the entity rather than themselves). The collectors would also agree not to bid in auctions in their individual capacities (which is a common commercial term). In such a case, Collector X and Collector Y will no longer contribute incremental bids as between themselves in auctions. I'm not aware of any legal restrictions preventing the creation of such joint ventures and, while I haven't checked, I don't think any of the relevant auction houses limit participation to individuals who bid solely on their own behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
43k? Yeah, gotta be.

 

I think who the artist is doesn't much matter anymore and will matter less and less going forward.

 

There goes my whole collecting basis!

 

No point in being a smartazz :P

 

Obviously I'm talking in the context of spiderman covers, or at least in the context of a set level of "content". Andru vs Byrne vs Kane, spidey covers from a certain era are mostly going to be priced on content/era/etc IMO.

 

Unless you think the 43k result, for example, is due to a new breed of Andru collectors.

 

It just doesn't matter who drew them. Your grandpa doug could have drawn that spidey cover and it would still get five figures.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing