Question for Heritage and comiclink reps wrt Burkey admission 2 2

[Funnyslover]

At last ! G'nite xxx

[Overthetopinc]

Well at least I wont have to protest to get him off of Death Row. Mike is a great guy and a very trust worthy individual. Perhaps his business module for auctions are not to your liking but I can assure you if Mike says he is going to do something its as solid as it comes.

[Meeley Man]

Mike is a great guy and a very trust worthy individual.

 

His actions in this situation would strongly suggest otherwise.

 

Perhaps his business module for auctions are not to your liking but I can assure you if Mike says he is going to do something its as solid as it comes.

 

You are either ethical in how you do business, at all times, or you are not. Mike's actions in this case (which have been going on for 14 years this way), shows that the former is not the case. It doesn't matter that if in 98% of your business you are honest and trustworthy. That 2% when you aren't matters just as much as the rest. Doing ethical business isn't a matter of degrees. It is an absolute. You either do it all the time, or you don't.

[jbud73]

I did in fact contact Heritage via email Sunday evening ( my particular situation is summarized about 10 pages back) and got a call from the person that handles consignments on Monday. He said they did review my purchase and that the bid beneath me and the winning bid (which ended up being vacated) were from bidders he was familiar with and that he considered legitimate.

 

For what it's worth, he did say he was familiar with these threads and with the situation and would be reviewing all of the art consigned by Romitaman.

 

As for what that means...people will have opinions on that. They very well could be doing that. I suppose it's possible that it's just spin and they are hoping this goes away quickly. It would be interesting to hear from other folks that feel they've been affected and what communication they have with Heritage.

 

 

Did Heritage offer any reason why the "winning bid" by a bidder that is familiar to them did not follow through. I would think a familiar name would not back out of a deal. Are there any repercussions from not paying for an item you win? I know if that happened around my way...the person would no longer be allowed to participate in future auctions.

 

He said that the bid was made in error, and that the bidder called and discussed it with them and did say he would pay since he did submit the bid, but at that point they decided to check with me and see if I wanted the lot at my max bid. I don't know enough to know if this is on the up and up...its plausible I suppose. It's just that those circumstances coupled with these threads raise some flags.

 

Given what we now know about Mike's shilling reserve practices, does anyone else not feel Heritage is aiding and abetting this practice by calling under bidders on his consignments? They can confirm he didn't bid, but they definitely need to do some digging as to the bidders themselves, if they are 'friends of Mike shilling his stuff' of course they are likely to be KNOWN bidders.

[jbud73]

 

HA, COMICLINK, CC...

 

For the buyers that might have possibly paid a higher price and the top bidders whom lost the piece , I would propose the following:

 

Contact each person and send them a certificate for one buyer fee transaction for free.

 

As an FYI - ComicLink never has Buyer Transaction Fees, so it's always FREE (meaning no upcharges) to Bid on ComicLink as a Buyer - - What you bid is what you pay (plus shipping/insurance for delivery of course) at ComicLink.

 

That's what I absolutely LOVE about bidding and buying on ComicLink.

 

Well I'm not sure I would spread the CL love because you realize that no BP only fuels an environment for shill reserve bidding to occur.

[jbud73]

Hello,

 

In light of the recent, public admission of shill bidding by Mike Burkey aka Romitaman, I would like to request a list of all lots this seller has consigned to Heritage for the last 3 years.

 

I would also request that any lots being consigned by this seller, both currently and in future auctions, be marked as such in their Description.

 

The above information will allow me to determine if I was affected by this activity, allow me to adjust FMV data for "comps", and also allow me to re-establish good faith in your auction house in advance of the upcoming Comic Signature Auction.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Just emailed to HA. Feel free to send your own.

 

I share a lot of these concerns and the overall sentiment of your inquiry.

 

Following your lead, I am going to preempt what I'm about to say by emphasizing this hypothetical scenario I'm about to describe should not be construed as speculating on how the terms were negotiated allowing no reserve terms to be used on the auctions where shill bidding was used to enforce a "soft" or "hidden" reserve.

 

What I think should be discussed is some of the instruments and incentives the auction companies are using to solicit inventory to include in their event auctions. While the commissions aren't really something that I think will change with this revelation, I do feel that instruments like offering cash advances on the terms/conditions where the consignor agrees to the risk of offering their pieces at no reserve should be more carefully scrutinized.

 

In a word, anyone who agrees to take an advance, and then shill bids on the auction because they don't want to sell the piece too low should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too.

 

What I'd like to see is the auction companies do a little more to protect everyone, including the buyers, and one of the ways they can do this is by either bloating the advances on "no reserve" terms, reducing the advances if the consignor insists on a "reserve" with a nominal "administrative fee" tacked on if it doesn't sell, and asking for the cash advances to be returned and use the OA as collateral on delinquent accounts or consignors not keeping on their end of the deal.

 

I understand the auctioneer potentially loses on the comission/BP when it doesn't sell, but there's enough to ponder from this revelation to consider how blame lands squarely on both the auction company and the consignor when such loop holes are exposed.

 

There's also something to be said about catching a glimpse of activity that demonstrates consignors unwilligness to see a piece sell for less than what they want, and to this point auction companies and consignors should be more vigilant in preventing their systems from being gamed in this manner.

 

While these suggestions may seem to be impossible to implement, or may not necessarily incent pieces to hit the auction block, simply put, the people that make these systems viable are buyers, and the status quo does nothing to allay people's concerns, nor does it help bolster confidence. Rather, more safeguards to protect the integrity of the bidding, past sales data, and the perception of market health will return some of the lost confidence from this revelation.

 

Joseph, as usual you make an astute point here. I asked a synergistic question towards Mike's assertion that, "Heritage did not allow him to place reserves." I'm not sure we have seem an answer to that statement. Steve F from Comic Connect has come on here to state that Mike's pieces were offered with reserves at his auction house.

 

The nuance, and there are a lot of nuances to this scheme, is that Mike may have been 'persuaded' to not offer items at reserve in exchange for a share of the BP reverting to him on sold items and a Zero, or very low fee on his overall consignments.

 

Anyway the Heritage contacting under bidders really is a powerful nuance as well, and whether overtly realized or not there does seem to be many COLLUSIVE elements at play in Mike's consignments to Heritage.

Edited February 4, 2016 by jbud73

[thehumantorch]

 

HA, COMICLINK, CC...

 

For the buyers that might have possibly paid a higher price and the top bidders whom lost the piece , I would propose the following:

 

Contact each person and send them a certificate for one buyer fee transaction for free.

 

As an FYI - ComicLink never has Buyer Transaction Fees, so it's always FREE (meaning no upcharges) to Bid on ComicLink as a Buyer - - What you bid is what you pay (plus shipping/insurance for delivery of course) at ComicLink.

 

That's what I absolutely LOVE about bidding and buying on ComicLink.

 

Well I'm not sure I would spread the CL love because you realize that no BP only fuels an environment for shill reserve bidding to occur.

 

And that's been worrying me. The higher the cost to buy back or shill your items the less likely you are to do it. Heritage generally charges the highest fees and logically is the least likely auction house to be shilled. I understand consignees with special items can get special deals that may alter that equation.

[Overthetopinc]

Mmeely man how many deals have you done with Mike? If so what were they like. Have you ever run a business? 98% perfect business with 2% that challenges someone's ethical standards that don't even know the details of the actual charges they are making doesn't seem right. Are you claiming you have never done something in your life that could be seen as morally wrong? Let me tell ya something. By not knowing the details and not calling Mike personally to ask him and spending a week slandering him to the point of people sharing innuendo about Mike like Hitler and Bernie Madoff to me and a lot of people like me is morally wrong.

[Meeley Man]

Mmeely man how many deals have you done with Mike? If so what were they like.

 

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. And it's "Meeley Man" not "Mmeely." If you are going to use my name, you should spell it correctly, especially since it's right there for you to see.

 

Have you ever run a business?

 

Yes, I have. I am currently. But again, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

98% perfect business with 2% that challenges someone's ethical standards that don't even know the details of the actual charges they are making doesn't seem right.

 

No, saying you are one the "most honest and trusted sellers" in a business, yet doing things you know fly in the face of that isn't right. Your attempt to downplay the violation of people's trust and the immorality and lack of ethics in what he did, truly is one of the scariest things I've seen people do to defend the indefensible.

 

Are you claiming you have never done something in your life that could be seen as morally wrong?

 

No, I'm claiming that what Mike did is immoral and unethical, which it obviously is. As for me, I've never done any unethical business practices on people. But then, ethics matter to me. Not so with others, it seems.

 

Let me tell ya something. By not knowing the details and not calling Mike personally to ask him and spending a week slandering him to the point of people sharing innuendo about Mike like Hitler and Bernie Madoff to me and a lot of people like me is morally wrong.

 

I never compared him to Hitler or Madoff. I said shilling is wrong and it is always wrong. I said that what Mike did in this case is unethical and immoral. All of which are facts. Maybe instead of coming after me for things I never said, you should look inside yourself and see why you are defending actions that are, quite obviously, indefensible. I'm sorry you are letting your personal relationship with Mike cloud your better judgment, but nothing you've said here to me has changed the realities of the situation one iota.

[Overthetopinc]

Shill bidding is not cool but do you know all the facts? You can say that is not important and this is not important instead of answering them but the fact is you are starting to seem like you are jealous over Mike's position in the hobby. Otherwise why bother spending every waking moment reading and replying for over a week. You should say one thing in one post and thats enough. Personally I think you are a trouble maker and like getting a rise out of people. Unfortunately I know Mike and can only imagine what this is doing to him and that is why I reply back. You are championing a wrong cause. I know the details and when Mike reply's back so will you. Saying anything slanderous before then sends a message bigger then anything you write. And no I dont care what kind of prestige you think slandering Mike has gotten you from this board I dont need to know your name to reply.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by Overthetopinc

[Californication]

However you look at it, a shill bid is ultimately a fake bid, an unsubstantive bid, a bid where the shill bidder has no desire to win the item they are bidding upon.

 

Putting FMV and comps aside, this described bid encourages a genuine purchaser to ultimately bid more than they might otherwise have to bid, which ultimately provides more profit for the auction house.

 

Auctioneers that allow it may describe it as " a bid to protect a reserve " unknown or known, but I believe that it is very much a confidence trick, even when described in the t&cs.

T&cs can change at any time. Heritage have many revisions in 2013 2014 2015, also how many people read t&cs or check for revisions before they bid?

 

In the UK, most of Europe and most developed countries shill bidding is now Illegal.

On the largest online auction house in the world, ebay, it is now illegal.

There have been many succesful prosecutions folowing shill bids on ebay auctions in the US as elsewhere.

 

Also, in parts of the US ( eg Virginia ) unsubstantive bids can be disregarded and the final bidder is allowed to pay the amount of the previous genuine bid.

 

Unfortunately for (comic art) buyers, the US still has major auction houses in some jurisdictions that class unsubstantive bids as legal.

 

But there are many unsavoury scenarios/practices that used to be legal in the US, and elsewhere, that now thankfully, are not legal - take a moment to make a mental list of a few - let us hope that shill bidding in auctions follows suit.

 

I believe ONE important lesson that can be learned from this is that genuine bidders never leave a proxy bid / ceiling bid, on either an online site, or with a b&m auctioneer, where shill bidding, sometimes described as owner or representative bidding, is not distinctly declared illegal.

 

I would like to add that the ethics of this have gone well beyond Mike, who I genuinely believe was ignorant that what he has admitted to (bidding up to his undefined reserve) was wrong or would be so frowned upon by the majority of collectors.

If he or others bid upon his auctions to create an illusory fmv, that is a different matter.

 

We have seen mixed messages from Heritage, in that they have written unsubstantive bids are both allowed and not allowed !

 

It is time for those remaining auctioneers that allow unsubstantive bidding to cease this con trick.

It would be nice to see some fresh t&c revisions from Heritage dated February 2016

 

Following these threads it would be helpful if Heritage made a statement regarding unsubstantive bids before their next auction.

 

 

[Meeley Man]

Shill bidding is not cool but do you know all the facts?

 

I know all the pertinent facts. Mike admitted to doing it (for 14 years). He tried to justify his doing it. And he has since said he's learned his lesson and will not do it anymore. Those are the facts.

 

You can say that is not important and this is not important instead of answering them but the fact is you are starting to seem like you are jealous over Mike's position in the hobby. Otherwise why bother spending every waking moment reading and replying for over a week.

 

I didn't answer those questions, because it has no bearing on the topic at hand. You only ask them, in some vain attempt to find some new excuse to defend Mike with, over actions that we all know were wrong.

 

As for why I'd concern myself with this, well, several reasons (none of which has to do with 'jealousy," which is likely why you asked those questions, to see if you could find something to support such a foolish claim).

 

I do so, because since I sell OA as well (as an art rep, not a dealer), what he has done could stigmatize others. How many here, to defend Mike have said "he's not the only one doing what he did"? Already others are suffering for his folly.

 

Then you have the manipulation of the market. How many people now can't be sure of art they've bought from him actually being worth what they paid? How has what he's done affected the price other reps and dealers charge? I always have tried to keep prices affordable, but even I need a base of FMV standards to work from. Mike's actions have damaged the credibility some now have of what FMV actually is.

 

Then, of course, there is the simple fact that some people just don't take kind of seeing people, who claim to be "trust worthy" engaging in unethical practices. So, you see, there are plenty of reasons someone might pipe in on this, which has nothing to do with "jealousy."

 

You should say one thing in one post and thats enough.

 

Oh, you mean like you have and how Mike's defenders have? Or are the rules different for you? And I didn't know the CGC boards were owned and run by you. Oh, they aren't? Then you have no right to tell anyone what they can post or how much.

 

Personally I think you are a trouble maker and like getting a rise out of people.

 

No, I think that's much more the tact Mike's defenders have taken. And, quite frankly, I don't care what you think of me personally. At least I know I've never done unethical business with folks in this hobby. That's what matters to me (and many others, I'm sure).

 

Unfortunately I know Mike and can only imagine what this is doing to him and that is why I reply back.

 

I imagine that he isn't too worried about it. After all, it looks like he has nothing to fear from HA or the law in doing what he did. So, I don't think you have to worry yourself too much about how he's feeling about it.

 

And it's so nice that you think he needs you to play defender for him. Of course, you aren't doing him any favors in being so, but then, I doubt those of you doing it think that far ahead.

 

You are championing a wrong cause.

 

Really? Championing transparency and ethical business practices is "the wrong cause?" No wonder so many others think there so much shilling in the hobby.

 

I know the details and when Mike reply's back so will you. Saying anything slanderous before then sends a message bigger then anything you right. And no I dont care what kind of prestige you think slandering Mike has gotten you from this board I dont need to know your name to reply.

 

So, saying what he did was wrong, unethical, and immoral is now "slanderous?" Because that is all I've said. Maybe you are too close to all this. Maybe you need to stop posting on this, if you are going to blur what I've said, with comparisons to Hitler and Madoff others made. Its shows you haven't the critical thinking skills to properly discuss this.

 

And again, your false assumptions to my motivations on why I've posted on this are quite amusing, even though I'm sure that's unintentional. After all, you are telling me not to comment because I "don't know Mike like you do," yet you have no compunction in assigning motivations to me, someone you don't know. So much so you can't even spell my user name correctly, when it is right in front of you. You better be careful. Spouting hypocrisy like that might give you a case of whiplash.

[crassus]

I would like to add that the ethics of this have gone well beyond Mike, who I genuinely believe was ignorant that what he has admitted to (bidding up to his undefined reserve) was wrong or would be so frowned upon by the majority of collectors.

If he or others bid upon his auctions to create an illusory fmv, that is a different matter.

 

How can making what you describe (correctly) as "ultimately a fake bid" have any other result than to contribute to an illusory fmv?

[Californication]

I would like to add that the ethics of this have gone well beyond Mike, who I genuinely believe was ignorant that what he has admitted to (bidding up to his undefined reserve) was wrong or would be so frowned upon by the majority of collectors.

If he or others bid upon his auctions to create an illusory fmv, that is a different matter.

 

How can making what you describe (correctly) as "ultimately a fake bid" have any other result than to contribute to an illusory fmv?

 

 

I was mainly giving my opinion regarding the situation where auction houses are not upfront regarding reserves and allow consignors to bid on their own auction. That is why I chose to post in the thread headed " Re: Question for Heritage and comiclink reps wrt Burkey admission"

 

If a consignor were to put into auction a piece they had paid $900 for and decided to place a notional reserve of $850 and were legally allowed to place bids on it rather than publish a reserve it would not necessarily create a false fmv if the piece did not progress beyond $850 but, the final bidder might still pay more than he need have done without the shill bids

 

When Mike mentioned that he was prepared to bid an item into profit if he believed it to have a much higher value than he paid for it, that is where he would cross the line into creating an illusory fmv. That situation, which more likely is a progression, might arise when he is unaware of how distasteful shill bidding is to us the majority. A combination of ignorance and habit.

 

Although I can see where my post appears contradictory.

 

I know as much of Mike as I have read here (plus purchase of 1 page from him about 8 years ago ) but I believe that no-one who thought they had transgressed, would write so openly admitting what they had done, additionally involving others.

When Mike posted here his guileless style leads me to believe he had no criminal intent.

 

I reiterate, my post is mainly a comment on the less than salubrious manner that the law allows auction houses to go about their business and not a defence or indictment of Mike.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by Californication

[BCarter27]

Hello,

 

In light of the recent, public admission of shill bidding by Mike Burkey aka Romitaman, I would like to request a list of all lots this seller has consigned to Heritage for the last 3 years.

 

I would also request that any lots being consigned by this seller, both currently and in future auctions, be marked as such in their Description.

 

The above information will allow me to determine if I was affected by this activity, allow me to adjust FMV data for "comps", and also allow me to re-establish good faith in your auction house in advance of the upcoming Comic Signature Auction.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Just emailed to HA. Feel free to send your own.

 

Still no response from Heritage to my email. Has anyone gotten a private response from them?

[BCarter27]

Can anyone familiar with Romitaman's past inventory determine if he has any consignments in the current auction?

 

Has anyone spotted any familiar, recycled lots yet? We could all help with the legwork if someone could suggest a good method to research this.

[Funnyslover]

Assuming auction houses' rules legitimising bids by consignors and their agents will continue, I think we should lobby the auction houses asking that they highlight bids made by consignors (and their nominated agents) - both on screen and on the floor.

[otherworldsj33]

Mmeely man how many deals have you done with Mike? If so what were they like. Have you ever run a business? 98% perfect business with 2% that challenges someone's ethical standards that don't even know the details of the actual charges they are making doesn't seem right. Are you claiming you have never done something in your life that could be seen as morally wrong? Let me tell ya something. By not knowing the details and not calling Mike personally to ask him and spending a week slandering him to the point of people sharing innuendo about Mike like Hitler and Bernie Madoff to me and a lot of people like me is morally wrong.

 

Finally someone who is not on his pedestal on this thread. Bravo.

[Chris Cooper]

Careful, compadre, that is not the kind of sentiment that our original comic art overlords are conditioning us to have.

[Mmehdy]

Assuming auction houses' rules legitimising bids by consignors and their agents will continue, I think we should lobby the auction houses asking that they highlight bids made by consignors (and their nominated agents) - both on screen and on the floor.

.

 

 

 

Great suggestion... But that would assume the auction house knows all of bidders , real or your buddy