Collusion in the OA Market - Right or Wrong?

[delekkerste]

Here's a concrete example. This is a book I recently won:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HEADLINE-COMICS-11-CGC-7-5-Scarce-High-Grade-Japanese-War-Cover-3rd-highest-/361469500309

 

It went for roughly 30X guide. However, if you look at the bidding history, had I been asked not to bid and stepped out it would have gone for about $1000 less, a reduction of about 30%. How do you think Ted would feel if I cost him $1000 on the sale? How can you rationalize this as ok to do because we're all good-hearted collectors? Do you think Ted would laugh it off because I was doing a buddy a favor?

 

First, who's to say that the ending price was FMV? Seems to me like the actual FMV is lower and that you and the winner cost each other a lot of money.

 

Second, who's to say that there wasn't someone willing to pay in-between you and the 2nd underbidder? Someone could have sniped 3 or 4 seconds before the end and didn't have their bid recorded because you and the winner had already pushed the price up beyond his max.

 

Third, nothing against Ted, but, why is he entitled to this $1,000? If, hypothetically, the winner was a friend and he asked you to back down because it was a Grail book, and you didn't because it somehow violated your ethical principles, well, you probably just cost him an extra grand, which I view as treacherous and unethical whereas you not bidding I don't consider to have any ethical implications at all.

 

Of course, I'm not talking about feeling guilted into standing down, or standing down on a piece you want equally or more, etc. as someone suggested. No one is talking about situations like those - of course in most situations you just let the chips fall where they may. I have bid on thousands of lots at auction and the number of lots where there was coordination with anyone else is a minuscule percentage.

[delekkerste]

They may be perfect examples but they are different scenarios than Terry's, in which he stated the desire was equal or at least hard to quantify.

 

Well, then bidding coordination is irrelevant in that scenario and doesn't even need to be discussed. In none of these cases is anyone being forcibly restrained from bidding. In most cases, people just let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

One scenario isn't an auction either; the difference is significant as Gene's seller knew and agreed to the arrangement apparently and this would not be the case in an auction..

 

It was more to illustrate to the point of just letting the natural bidding progression take its course, with the implication that he who has the most resources should just be allowed to win. This was a situation where I could have easily just bought the cover for myself - at a sweetheart price no less - and instead I recognized that there was someone else out there who would want and appreciate it more than I did. Not everything has to sell for some theoretical FMV and no one should be compelled to bid or forbidden from talking about lots for sale with friends and fellow collectors (which, again, is the implication of some of the arguments being made here).

 

 

If you collect something seriously you likely know the other players who play in your sandbox. I got to know some of the main Tony Harris collectors via their online names well before we communicated directly. We could have easily taken turns at pieces and kept prices low (kinda at the level they are now since I stopped hoarding and Cory became Tony's rep!)

 

I myself think collusion is wrong and unfair. It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

I think collusion can be wrong and unfair. Let's say Heritage and CLink and ComicConnect all met up and all agreed to charge a 25% buyer's premium and 10% seller's premium and not to give any discounts that might induce consignors to choose one over the other. That's an obvious abuse of oligopoly powers and are what the laws regarding collusion are meant to address. I really don't see how it applies to me not running up the price on a piece that a friend really wants.

[Bird]

I think an important distinction to make is if the separate parties, prior to discussing anything with each other, decide that they are going to bid on a piece but one or more later changes their behavior based on "collusion". (I understand that this is a hypothetical distinction as I know that deciding to bid can be a decision with many many variables, some of which are not revealed until auction time.) That is rigging the game. Now among friends I might do something "wrong" to benefit one of them, not criminal but not especially fair. That don't make it right though. (I can't think of an example but it could happen I imagine, especially in the spur of the moment and definitely in my younger days.)

 

 

[Bird]

One scenario isn't an auction either; the difference is significant as Gene's seller knew and agreed to the arrangement apparently and this would not be the case in an auction..

 

It was more to illustrate to the point of just letting the natural bidding progression take its course, with the implication that he who has the most resources should just be allowed to win. This was a situation where I could have easily just bought the cover for myself - at a sweetheart price no less - and instead I recognized that there was someone else out there who would want and appreciate it more than I did. Not everything has to sell for some theoretical FMV and no one should be compelled to bid or forbidden from talking about lots for sale with friends and fellow collectors (which, again, is the implication of some of the arguments being made here).

 

I certainly agree no one deserves anything regarding price but I hope for a fair playing field. Friends should talk about anything and everything, I have no issue with hanging out and talking auctions either.

 

If you collect something seriously you likely know the other players who play in your sandbox. I got to know some of the main Tony Harris collectors via their online names well before we communicated directly. We could have easily taken turns at pieces and kept prices low (kinda at the level they are now since I stopped hoarding and Cory became Tony's rep!)

 

I myself think collusion is wrong and unfair. It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

 

I think collusion can be wrong and unfair. Let's say Heritage and CLink and ComicConnect all met up and all agreed to charge a 25% buyer's premium and 10% seller's premium and not to give any discounts that might induce consignors to choose one over the other. That's an obvious abuse of oligopoly powers and are what the laws regarding collusion are meant to address. I really don't see how it applies to me not running up the price on a piece that a friend really wants.

 

I am not talking about laws, I would be surprised if what is being discussed is criminal as well. But when your friend thanks you for "not running up the price" he would be recognizing the loss of income to the seller, which as I said earlier, is "unfair". Not criminal though.

[comix4fun]

Terry--FWIW, here's my responses to those questions:

 

My response was limited to a two key points:

 

1. Who's to say that my friend's need to acquire the art was greater than mine? I can. I can decide that another person's expressed need for a piece is greater than my own need.

 

2. The guy who is willing to pay the most for the art deserves to own it and that we should let the natural progression of the bidding decide that. Yes, unless I think that the other person "deserves" it more than me so my ability to outbid him or he outbid me doesn't come into the equation.

 

While I respect your decision to not forebear bidding, that doesn't mean that another person's decision to forebear bidding is therefore not as valid as your choice.

 

Very well said!

 

There are definitely situations where it's every man for himself. But, if there's a piece that I want, but is not a must-have for me, and my friend tells me it's a piece he's lusted after for 10 years, what kind of friend/person would I be if I said, "sorry, man, but we gotta let the natural progression of the bidding decide that"? That doesn't sound like a hobby I would want to be a part of.

 

I was offered a really nice '80s cover a year or two ago privately for a very attractive price - my friend got the piece cheaply and was willing to make me a sweetheart deal for it. I could have picked it up for myself, and would have, except I knew there was a Boardie who had been looking for a cover by this artist on this run for a very long time. So, I told him, "hey, I've been offered this piece privately - if you're willing to pay his asking price, I'll hook you up with my friend who's selling it. Otherwise, I'm going to buy it for myself." The amount in question was a bigger deal to him than it was for me. Should I have gotten the art just because I could, with the greater access and greater resources? I don't think so. His need/desire was greater than mine - I already had an example from the run that I was happy with, whereas this was a near-Grail for him. I think it was great that he got the piece, my friend made a good profit on the sale and I got to help somebody out. That's how this hobby should work.

 

 

Perfect examples, really.

 

I feel the same way.

 

The Cimmerian-Bloodlust-Mercenary-Fever I've seen some people display over funny book pages...or any hobby that's supposed to be a source of joy and nostalgia and a reminder of a happier childhood time...makes me wonder how some people are wired that a piece of paper (or stamp or card or toy) is more important than being a human being.

 

I think it all depends on the collecting focus and if the piece in question is equally grail-like for both parties.

 

With the example I cited, I could match the background to wanting the piece as much as the other guy could.

 

Not all scenarios have the same balance.

 

 

I can see that. I've had friends back off of pieces, without me asking, when they knew how badly I wanted something. I've done that for a few people. Every situation is different.

 

However, I've yet to deal with a scenario where it's entirely equal. That's for me personally. At the end of the day these are just things. So much of how much I can enjoy them comes from the feelings surrounding the story and how I acquire. It's easier for me to walk away when faced with a friend who ardently wants it desperately.

[comix4fun]

Terry--FWIW, here's my responses to those questions:

 

My response was limited to a two key points:

 

1. Who's to say that my friend's need to acquire the art was greater than mine? I can. I can decide that another person's expressed need for a piece is greater than my own need.

 

2. The guy who is willing to pay the most for the art deserves to own it and that we should let the natural progression of the bidding decide that. Yes, unless I think that the other person "deserves" it more than me so my ability to outbid him or he outbid me doesn't come into the equation.

 

While I respect your decision to not forebear bidding, that doesn't mean that another person's decision to forebear bidding is therefore not as valid as your choice.

 

Very well said!

 

There are definitely situations where it's every man for himself. But, if there's a piece that I want, but is not a must-have for me, and my friend tells me it's a piece he's lusted after for 10 years, what kind of friend/person would I be if I said, "sorry, man, but we gotta let the natural progression of the bidding decide that"? That doesn't sound like a hobby I would want to be a part of.

 

I was offered a really nice '80s cover a year or two ago privately for a very attractive price - my friend got the piece cheaply and was willing to make me a sweetheart deal for it. I could have picked it up for myself, and would have, except I knew there was a Boardie who had been looking for a cover by this artist on this run for a very long time. So, I told him, "hey, I've been offered this piece privately - if you're willing to pay his asking price, I'll hook you up with my friend who's selling it. Otherwise, I'm going to buy it for myself." The amount in question was a bigger deal to him than it was for me. Should I have gotten the art just because I could, with the greater access and greater resources? I don't think so. His need/desire was greater than mine - I already had an example from the run that I was happy with, whereas this was a near-Grail for him. I think it was great that he got the piece, my friend made a good profit on the sale and I got to help somebody out. That's how this hobby should work.

 

 

Perfect examples, really.

 

I feel the same way.

 

The Cimmerian-Bloodlust-Mercenary-Fever I've seen some people display over funny book pages...or any hobby that's supposed to be a source of joy and nostalgia and a reminder of a happier childhood time...makes me wonder how some people are wired that a piece of paper (or stamp or card or toy) is more important than being a human being.

 

They may be perfect examples but they are different scenarios than Terry's, in which he stated the desire was equal or at least hard to quantify. One scenario isn't an auction either; the difference is significant as Gene's seller knew and agreed to the arrangement apparently and this would not be the case in an auction..

 

If you collect something seriously you likely know the other players who play in your sandbox. I got to know some of the main Tony Harris collectors via their online names well before we communicated directly. We could have easily taken turns at pieces and kept prices low (kinda at the level they are now since I stopped hoarding and Cory became Tony's rep!)

I myself think collusion is wrong and unfair. It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

 

 

Actual collusion is. Nothing given as example so far (of two friends and one decides to walk away from a piece) rises to that level.

 

[Bird]

Terry--FWIW, here's my responses to those questions:

 

My response was limited to a two key points:

 

1. Who's to say that my friend's need to acquire the art was greater than mine? I can. I can decide that another person's expressed need for a piece is greater than my own need.

 

2. The guy who is willing to pay the most for the art deserves to own it and that we should let the natural progression of the bidding decide that. Yes, unless I think that the other person "deserves" it more than me so my ability to outbid him or he outbid me doesn't come into the equation.

 

While I respect your decision to not forebear bidding, that doesn't mean that another person's decision to forebear bidding is therefore not as valid as your choice.

 

Very well said!

 

There are definitely situations where it's every man for himself. But, if there's a piece that I want, but is not a must-have for me, and my friend tells me it's a piece he's lusted after for 10 years, what kind of friend/person would I be if I said, "sorry, man, but we gotta let the natural progression of the bidding decide that"? That doesn't sound like a hobby I would want to be a part of.

 

I was offered a really nice '80s cover a year or two ago privately for a very attractive price - my friend got the piece cheaply and was willing to make me a sweetheart deal for it. I could have picked it up for myself, and would have, except I knew there was a Boardie who had been looking for a cover by this artist on this run for a very long time. So, I told him, "hey, I've been offered this piece privately - if you're willing to pay his asking price, I'll hook you up with my friend who's selling it. Otherwise, I'm going to buy it for myself." The amount in question was a bigger deal to him than it was for me. Should I have gotten the art just because I could, with the greater access and greater resources? I don't think so. His need/desire was greater than mine - I already had an example from the run that I was happy with, whereas this was a near-Grail for him. I think it was great that he got the piece, my friend made a good profit on the sale and I got to help somebody out. That's how this hobby should work.

 

 

Perfect examples, really.

 

I feel the same way.

 

The Cimmerian-Bloodlust-Mercenary-Fever I've seen some people display over funny book pages...or any hobby that's supposed to be a source of joy and nostalgia and a reminder of a happier childhood time...makes me wonder how some people are wired that a piece of paper (or stamp or card or toy) is more important than being a human being.

 

I think it all depends on the collecting focus and if the piece in question is equally grail-like for both parties.

 

With the example I cited, I could match the background to wanting the piece as much as the other guy could.

 

Not all scenarios have the same balance.

 

 

I can see that. I've had friends back off of pieces, without me asking, when they knew how badly I wanted something. I've done that for a few people. Every situation is different.

 

However, I've yet to deal with a scenario where it's entirely equal. That's for me personally. At the end of the day these are just things. So much of how much I can enjoy them comes from the feelings surrounding the story and how I acquire. It's easier for me to walk away when faced with a friend who ardently wants it desperately.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Especially ardently AND desperately!

[wombat]

One scenario isn't an auction either; the difference is significant as Gene's seller knew and agreed to the arrangement apparently and this would not be the case in an auction..

 

It was more to illustrate to the point of just letting the natural bidding progression take its course, with the implication that he who has the most resources should just be allowed to win. This was a situation where I could have easily just bought the cover for myself - at a sweetheart price no less - and instead I recognized that there was someone else out there who would want and appreciate it more than I did. Not everything has to sell for some theoretical FMV and no one should be compelled to bid or forbidden from talking about lots for sale with friends and fellow collectors (which, again, is the implication of some of the arguments being made here).

 

I certainly agree no one deserves anything regarding price but I hope for a fair playing field. Friends should talk about anything and everything, I have no issue with hanging out and talking auctions either.

 

If you collect something seriously you likely know the other players who play in your sandbox. I got to know some of the main Tony Harris collectors via their online names well before we communicated directly. We could have easily taken turns at pieces and kept prices low (kinda at the level they are now since I stopped hoarding and Cory became Tony's rep!)

 

I myself think collusion is wrong and unfair. It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

 

I think collusion can be wrong and unfair. Let's say Heritage and CLink and ComicConnect all met up and all agreed to charge a 25% buyer's premium and 10% seller's premium and not to give any discounts that might induce consignors to choose one over the other. That's an obvious abuse of oligopoly powers and are what the laws regarding collusion are meant to address. I really don't see how it applies to me not running up the price on a piece that a friend really wants.

 

I am not talking about laws, I would be surprised if what is being discussed is criminal as well. But when your friend thanks you for "not running up the price" he would be recognizing the loss of income to the seller, which as I said earlier, is "unfair". Not criminal though.

 

Loss of income to the seller. Loss of money to the buyer. Is one more "unfair" than the other?

[Bird]

One scenario isn't an auction either; the difference is significant as Gene's seller knew and agreed to the arrangement apparently and this would not be the case in an auction..

 

It was more to illustrate to the point of just letting the natural bidding progression take its course, with the implication that he who has the most resources should just be allowed to win. This was a situation where I could have easily just bought the cover for myself - at a sweetheart price no less - and instead I recognized that there was someone else out there who would want and appreciate it more than I did. Not everything has to sell for some theoretical FMV and no one should be compelled to bid or forbidden from talking about lots for sale with friends and fellow collectors (which, again, is the implication of some of the arguments being made here).

 

I certainly agree no one deserves anything regarding price but I hope for a fair playing field. Friends should talk about anything and everything, I have no issue with hanging out and talking auctions either.

 

If you collect something seriously you likely know the other players who play in your sandbox. I got to know some of the main Tony Harris collectors via their online names well before we communicated directly. We could have easily taken turns at pieces and kept prices low (kinda at the level they are now since I stopped hoarding and Cory became Tony's rep!)

 

I myself think collusion is wrong and unfair. It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

 

I think collusion can be wrong and unfair. Let's say Heritage and CLink and ComicConnect all met up and all agreed to charge a 25% buyer's premium and 10% seller's premium and not to give any discounts that might induce consignors to choose one over the other. That's an obvious abuse of oligopoly powers and are what the laws regarding collusion are meant to address. I really don't see how it applies to me not running up the price on a piece that a friend really wants.

 

I am not talking about laws, I would be surprised if what is being discussed is criminal as well. But when your friend thanks you for "not running up the price" he would be recognizing the loss of income to the seller, which as I said earlier, is "unfair". Not criminal though.

 

Loss of income to the seller. Loss of money to the buyer. Is one more "unfair" than the other?

 

I think so, but have to think about it! I think one is more fair, although the other could be more "right" because friendships have value. Like I implied earlier, the MOST LIKELY way for me to do something "wrong" is if it were to benefit a friend. (The old "get your gun and come over" scenario.)

[Terry Doyle]

 

. . . Sometimes I say "sorry I cannot do that for this piece" and let the best bid win.

 

. . . I don't do that for strangers or casual acquaintances and only people with whom I have some sort of collecting relationship would even ask.

 

 

These points tie-in perfectly to the example I cited.

 

? You called him a "friend" and then he became a "so-called friend" by asking. So are you saying if he was an "actual" friend you would be okay with that. If you are, then I agree with your post using my post to agree with your post. If not, than my points do not tie in perfectly with your example.

 

Because I'm saying there is a small group of people who I have had multi-year dealings with (asking advice, helping to track pieces, buying/selling with them, etc.) that if circumstances subjectively to me warrant, I would do this for. Otherwise I generally I would not.

 

The brevity of my original post wasn't intended to provide a comprehensive overview.

 

To clarify a little more, the guy in question was more of a casual acquaintance who, when looking to enlist my aid, suddenly acted like we were busom-buddies (hence my 'so-called friend' description). He lived at the other end of the country, didn't hang out with me, and contact (the occasional snail-mail) was far and few between.

 

As an afterthought, from what I heard from other collectors within that particular circle, he wasn't someone who was known for reciprocating favours. He would want to be your 'friend' when circumstances suited his needs.

 

This was the only time that someone approached me with the idea of colluding in an auction scenario. Personally, I wouldn't dream of imposing on others with such a request (which would normally be a case of, 'let the best man win' with me).

 

Another scenario that springs to mind (which also happened many years ago in pre-internet days) was when Keif Fromm wanted me to trade him an EC Horror cover I owned at the time (Haunt of Fear # 6). Keif would sometimes phone me, telling me how much he 'truly loved' my cover and was desperate to own it as it would be a dream come true. As he was unprepared to offer me anything suitably tempting (mostly low-end stuff), nothing ever came of those discussions.

 

A year or two later, I made contact with Roger Hill who revealed to me that Keif never 'truly loved' my EC cover . . . he just wanted to use it in turn to trade with Roger.

 

 

[Bird]

Terry--FWIW, here's my responses to those questions:

 

My response was limited to a two key points:

 

1. Who's to say that my friend's need to acquire the art was greater than mine? I can. I can decide that another person's expressed need for a piece is greater than my own need.

 

2. The guy who is willing to pay the most for the art deserves to own it and that we should let the natural progression of the bidding decide that. Yes, unless I think that the other person "deserves" it more than me so my ability to outbid him or he outbid me doesn't come into the equation.

 

While I respect your decision to not forebear bidding, that doesn't mean that another person's decision to forebear bidding is therefore not as valid as your choice.

 

Very well said!

 

There are definitely situations where it's every man for himself. But, if there's a piece that I want, but is not a must-have for me, and my friend tells me it's a piece he's lusted after for 10 years, what kind of friend/person would I be if I said, "sorry, man, but we gotta let the natural progression of the bidding decide that"? That doesn't sound like a hobby I would want to be a part of.

 

I was offered a really nice '80s cover a year or two ago privately for a very attractive price - my friend got the piece cheaply and was willing to make me a sweetheart deal for it. I could have picked it up for myself, and would have, except I knew there was a Boardie who had been looking for a cover by this artist on this run for a very long time. So, I told him, "hey, I've been offered this piece privately - if you're willing to pay his asking price, I'll hook you up with my friend who's selling it. Otherwise, I'm going to buy it for myself." The amount in question was a bigger deal to him than it was for me. Should I have gotten the art just because I could, with the greater access and greater resources? I don't think so. His need/desire was greater than mine - I already had an example from the run that I was happy with, whereas this was a near-Grail for him. I think it was great that he got the piece, my friend made a good profit on the sale and I got to help somebody out. That's how this hobby should work.

 

 

Perfect examples, really.

 

I feel the same way.

 

The Cimmerian-Bloodlust-Mercenary-Fever I've seen some people display over funny book pages...or any hobby that's supposed to be a source of joy and nostalgia and a reminder of a happier childhood time...makes me wonder how some people are wired that a piece of paper (or stamp or card or toy) is more important than being a human being.

 

They may be perfect examples but they are different scenarios than Terry's, in which he stated the desire was equal or at least hard to quantify. One scenario isn't an auction either; the difference is significant as Gene's seller knew and agreed to the arrangement apparently and this would not be the case in an auction..

 

If you collect something seriously you likely know the other players who play in your sandbox. I got to know some of the main Tony Harris collectors via their online names well before we communicated directly. We could have easily taken turns at pieces and kept prices low (kinda at the level they are now since I stopped hoarding and Cory became Tony's rep!)

I myself think collusion is wrong and unfair. It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

 

 

Actual collusion is. Nothing given as example so far (of two friends and one decides to walk away from a piece) rises to that level.

 

Well, I am not sure why there is a discussion then?

 

The question then becomes, when does friendly talk become actual collusion? Or is the answer never?

[comix4fun]

The only bids that matter are those at the margin, that would affect the final outcome, that create separation from two bidders to a single (winning) bidder.

 

So in an old-school open outcry auction (with a live bidding audience), the auctioneer calls opening at $10k...anyone? And twenty-five hands go up, only two of them matter, as a quantity greater than one is what prompts the auctioneer to raise the bid an increment - in an attempt to create separation. This will go on until the field of bidders drops to two and then separation occurs to a single (winning) bidder. The only bids that matter (whether made or not) are the final two dropping down to one.

 

All of this can be ported to online or mixed bidding audiences as well.

 

My conclusion being that most of what is called collusion is a misnomer as there is no actual impact unless one of the colluders sits in the #2 seat as underbidder, and backs off at that point! I doubt this is the case as most collusion occurs, by definition between parties that are not likely to go all the way anyway..that's why they're asking for or answering with a backoff (basically earlier than usual separation)...they're priced out of anticipated FMV or otherwise less than fully interested to begin with. Big 'ol imo on that last part, of course.

 

The only weakness I see to this argument is the psychological damage reduced overall participation/interest could have on the rest of the bidding audience. Hard to place a gain/loss value on this though.

 

There are an awful lot of assumptions in this rationale. I can't see lowball bidders conspiring with the hope that they'll walk away with a steal. In my experience the talking happens at the top where people know who is likely to bid and win.

 

Regardless, if you take a black-and-white view, it's the same principle as shilling, but occurring from the converse side. You can rationalize it all you want and say that it's not likely to affect outcomes, but it's the same exact principle.

 

No - when you shill bid the buyer is the same guy as the seller (either in name or fact).

 

In bid suppression situations you have separate bona fide buyers and bona fide sellers.

 

More often than not, shilling is intended to bid up a valid buyer, not to have the seller buy back his own stuff. You've been doing this long enough to know that.

 

The outcome in question isn't who wins or who owns it. The outcome is the price paid. From that perspective, which frankly is the only relevant perspective, they're the same thing.

 

Shilling -- one person conspires to elevate a price in their favor.

Collusion -- one person conspires to diminish a price in their favor.

 

Same coin, different sides.

 

 

I see what you're saying. However, one person can't conspire to do anything.

 

The difference really is one person can effectively shill a piece higher than it may go, and that can be determined to 100% certainty by the person doing the shilling.

 

But, one person or even a group of people cannot diminish a price in their favor to any degree of certainty in an open bidding situation. You can have 10 of the 12 top bidders for a piece of art agree to not bid and the piece may still go for every last dollar it would have gone for if the the agreement of the 10 never occurred.

 

There's just no way to know you are eliminating the winning bidder and the underbidder in an open bidding pool.

 

From an effectiveness and relevance standpoint they are very different from a statistical certainty point of view.

[comix4fun]

Terry--FWIW, here's my responses to those questions:

 

My response was limited to a two key points:

 

1. Who's to say that my friend's need to acquire the art was greater than mine? I can. I can decide that another person's expressed need for a piece is greater than my own need.

 

2. The guy who is willing to pay the most for the art deserves to own it and that we should let the natural progression of the bidding decide that. Yes, unless I think that the other person "deserves" it more than me so my ability to outbid him or he outbid me doesn't come into the equation.

 

While I respect your decision to not forebear bidding, that doesn't mean that another person's decision to forebear bidding is therefore not as valid as your choice.

 

Very well said!

 

There are definitely situations where it's every man for himself. But, if there's a piece that I want, but is not a must-have for me, and my friend tells me it's a piece he's lusted after for 10 years, what kind of friend/person would I be if I said, "sorry, man, but we gotta let the natural progression of the bidding decide that"? That doesn't sound like a hobby I would want to be a part of.

 

I was offered a really nice '80s cover a year or two ago privately for a very attractive price - my friend got the piece cheaply and was willing to make me a sweetheart deal for it. I could have picked it up for myself, and would have, except I knew there was a Boardie who had been looking for a cover by this artist on this run for a very long time. So, I told him, "hey, I've been offered this piece privately - if you're willing to pay his asking price, I'll hook you up with my friend who's selling it. Otherwise, I'm going to buy it for myself." The amount in question was a bigger deal to him than it was for me. Should I have gotten the art just because I could, with the greater access and greater resources? I don't think so. His need/desire was greater than mine - I already had an example from the run that I was happy with, whereas this was a near-Grail for him. I think it was great that he got the piece, my friend made a good profit on the sale and I got to help somebody out. That's how this hobby should work.

 

 

Perfect examples, really.

 

I feel the same way.

 

The Cimmerian-Bloodlust-Mercenary-Fever I've seen some people display over funny book pages...or any hobby that's supposed to be a source of joy and nostalgia and a reminder of a happier childhood time...makes me wonder how some people are wired that a piece of paper (or stamp or card or toy) is more important than being a human being.

 

They may be perfect examples but they are different scenarios than Terry's, in which he stated the desire was equal or at least hard to quantify. One scenario isn't an auction either; the difference is significant as Gene's seller knew and agreed to the arrangement apparently and this would not be the case in an auction..

 

If you collect something seriously you likely know the other players who play in your sandbox. I got to know some of the main Tony Harris collectors via their online names well before we communicated directly. We could have easily taken turns at pieces and kept prices low (kinda at the level they are now since I stopped hoarding and Cory became Tony's rep!)

I myself think collusion is wrong and unfair. It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

 

 

Actual collusion is. Nothing given as example so far (of two friends and one decides to walk away from a piece) rises to that level.

 

Well, I am not sure why there is a discussion then?

 

The question then becomes, when does friendly talk become actual collusion? Or is the answer never?

 

 

You have to have a closed bidder pool, with all parties known, in order to determine with certainty that collusion was actual or illusory.

 

Absent something more nefarious, talk between two friends in an open and public bidding pool where no one is compelled to bid or spend anything the answer is "never".

[suspense39]

So if all four of my collecting friends like a piece we all have to bid on it, against each other or else it's collusion.

[Bronty]

So if all four of my collecting friends like a piece we all have to bid on it, against each other or else it's collusion.

 

yes, this whole discussion really is that asinine

[Bird]

So if all four of my collecting friends like a piece we all have to bid on it, against each other or else it's collusion.

 

yes, this whole discussion really is that asinine

 

Thanks, I couldn't figure out how to reply to that.

 

I've made my thoughts clear. Tired of typing.

 

That said, please do not bid on the next Moebius to come to auction please.

 

 

(Just kidding, I got one on the way in the mail now! Tiny but ya' gotta start somewhere.)

 

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

So if all four of my collecting friends like a piece we all have to bid on it, against each other or else it's collusion.

 

Sounds like you're trying to put words in my mouth (if your post was intended for me . . . my name is in your post as a point of reference?).

 

If you want to bid on something, why would you want to compare notes with others, unless sizing-up the opposition?

 

If something comes-up for auction that I'm especially keen on, I give it my best shot. Simple as that.

[comix4fun]

So if all four of my collecting friends like a piece we all have to bid on it, against each other or else it's collusion.

 

Yes....you have to bid on every pieces in every auction, even if you only like it a little.

 

You have to bid twice as high as you would have if you know a friend wants it too.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Paid for by "Fund to Put Auctioneers Children Through College Association"

 

[comix4fun]

So if all four of my collecting friends like a piece we all have to bid on it, against each other or else it's collusion.

 

Sounds like you're trying to put words in my mouth.

 

If you want to bid on something, why would you want to compare notes with others, unless sizing-up the opposition?

 

If something comes-up for auction that I'm especially keen on, I give it my best shot. Simple as that.

 

 

Your clarified point is pretty spot on. Having a random hobby acquaintance come to you to try and clear the field makes you wonder how many people he's asking. It's also a lame- move on any continent.

 

I know if I want to bid on something I tend to compare notes with others to see if my estimates our outdated, or overstated, or right on with others. This hobby has taught me, more than once, that wrapping your head around a potential value ahead of time will help you get a piece of art at a price you might not have considered reasonable in real time as it's being auctioned.

 

Without preparing ahead of time, comparing notes, getting feedback on market perceptions, you might wrap your head around the value AFTER the auctions over, also know as WAY TOO LATE.

 

 

[suspense39]

So if all four of my collecting friends like a piece we all have to bid on it, against each other or else it's collusion.

 

Sounds like you're trying to put words in my mouth.

 

If you want to bid on something, why would you want to compare notes with others, unless sizing-up the opposition?

 

If something comes-up for auction that I'm especially keen on, I give it my best shot. Simple as that.

 

It was not directed at you more of a general statement based on reading through the thread.

 

For me there's usually more than one piece I like in an auction, if a friend likes a piece more than me I'm more than happy to move on to something else, giving another seller my money.