Collusion in the OA Market - Right or Wrong?

[Ironmandrd]

Something along these lines happened to me about twenty years ago when Christies of London was holding an auction of comic-book OA that I'd been gearing-up to attend. A handful of pieces were high on my list of grail-like items to pursue.

 

About a week before the auction I was approached by a so-called friend asking me if I could find it in my heart not to bid against him on one of those pieces I was especially keen on landing that he was also desperate to acquire.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Needless to say, no collusion took place.

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.

[Terry Doyle]

Something along these lines happened to me about twenty years ago when Christies of London was holding an auction of comic-book OA that I'd been gearing-up to attend. A handful of pieces were high on my list of grail-like items to pursue.

 

About a week before the auction I was approached by a so-called friend asking me if I could find it in my heart not to bid against him on one of those pieces I was especially keen on landing that he was also desperate to acquire.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Needless to say, no collusion took place.

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.

 

Doesn't work that way for me, sorry, but I'm fine with your opinions.

 

To my mind, a 'true friend' shouldn't feel the need to resort to emotional blackmail in order to deter you from competing for something you both hold in equal high regard.

 

Given that both myself and my so-called friend had a narrow focus of very similar tastes (as reflected by our respective collections at the time), both of us could have easily built a case for deserved ownership of the art in question.

 

As such, let your wallet be the arbiter.

 

[buttock]

So what is the number of participants necessary to designate collusion as right vs. wrong. Evidently, as long as it's just you and a buddy it's ok. If it's a few dealers (do dealers come in flocks, gaggles, murders... ?) then it's ok. I would imagine if everyone except one person decided to lay off and you got it at opening bid, that might generate a scowl or two, so at what point does collusion become right or wrong?

 

 

 

The missing variables in this analysis would be the total number of bidders, their bidding level, and how many people are sharing information/deciding to refrain or bid.

 

In a closed bidding scenario with, for example, 5 bidders....if 4 bidders enter into an agreement where only one of them bids, they still may not have impacted the final value of the piece depending on the bidding level of the one left standing and the independent bidder outside the group of 4.

 

In order to be true collusion, and impactful to a statistical certainty, you'd need ALL the bidders to be involved. Anything less and it is simply probable or potentially likely that the agreement had an impact but not certain.

 

So the size of the bidding pool, the size of the group of bidders refraining from bidding, and where they were in personal valuation or bid level before you can answer if the actions have crossed from "friendly abstention" and into "market altering collusion".

 

Exactly. So unless you know those variables, you don't know the impact of your agreement and it should be assumed that you are negatively affecting the outcome. I would argue that this makes any such agreement at minimum on the darker side of the gray zone, and at most wrong.

[malvin]

well, it only makes sense that the person stepping aside was willing to bid less.

 

It's sort of pointless that the person stepping aside was willing to bid more, especially if someone else wins it. I suppose it can be more complicated where once the friend bids his max and is then outbid, the "higher bidding friend" is then free to pursue.

 

Malvin

[Terry Doyle]

So what is the number of participants necessary to designate collusion as right vs. wrong. Evidently, as long as it's just you and a buddy it's ok. If it's a few dealers (do dealers come in flocks, gaggles, murders... ?) then it's ok. I would imagine if everyone except one person decided to lay off and you got it at opening bid, that might generate a scowl or two, so at what point does collusion become right or wrong?

 

 

 

The missing variables in this analysis would be the total number of bidders, their bidding level, and how many people are sharing information/deciding to refrain or bid.

 

In a closed bidding scenario with, for example, 5 bidders....if 4 bidders enter into an agreement where only one of them bids, they still may not have impacted the final value of the piece depending on the bidding level of the one left standing and the independent bidder outside the group of 4.

 

In order to be true collusion, and impactful to a statistical certainty, you'd need ALL the bidders to be involved. Anything less and it is simply probable or potentially likely that the agreement had an impact but not certain.

 

So the size of the bidding pool, the size of the group of bidders refraining from bidding, and where they were in personal valuation or bid level before you can answer if the actions have crossed from "friendly abstention" and into "market altering collusion".

 

Exactly. So unless you know those variables, you don't know the impact of your agreement and it should be assumed that you are negatively affecting the outcome. I would argue that this makes any such agreement at minimum on the darker side of the gray zone, and at most wrong.

 

Not quite in the 'shilling' league, but the 'collusion' idea is not something I'd feel happy endorsing.

[vodou]

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.

[delekkerste]

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.

[theflashunc]

Not to get too pedantic, but it to be collusion in the sense that affects the market, a la Aubrey and Chesapeake, or the MLB owners in the 80s agreeing to depress wages league-wide, but doesn't essentially everyone have to be in on it to become collusion in its purest form?

 

This is one of those questions and issues where I think context is everything.

 

If the intent of a handshake agreement with a friend is to reduce -- even just by a bit -- the competition for a page at auction, I don't think I see the harm in that if there's other bidders out there and the end result isn't some artificially depressed price.

 

But, if its just you and that buddy and you're the entire market for Billy Bob's Superhero of Awesomeness Pages, and you're splitting up the pages amongst the two of you as big fish in this pool, then yeah, its a problem and a big one to boot.

[comix4fun]

So what is the number of participants necessary to designate collusion as right vs. wrong. Evidently, as long as it's just you and a buddy it's ok. If it's a few dealers (do dealers come in flocks, gaggles, murders... ?) then it's ok. I would imagine if everyone except one person decided to lay off and you got it at opening bid, that might generate a scowl or two, so at what point does collusion become right or wrong?

 

 

 

The missing variables in this analysis would be the total number of bidders, their bidding level, and how many people are sharing information/deciding to refrain or bid.

 

In a closed bidding scenario with, for example, 5 bidders....if 4 bidders enter into an agreement where only one of them bids, they still may not have impacted the final value of the piece depending on the bidding level of the one left standing and the independent bidder outside the group of 4.

 

In order to be true collusion, and impactful to a statistical certainty, you'd need ALL the bidders to be involved. Anything less and it is simply probable or potentially likely that the agreement had an impact but not certain.

 

So the size of the bidding pool, the size of the group of bidders refraining from bidding, and where they were in personal valuation or bid level before you can answer if the actions have crossed from "friendly abstention" and into "market altering collusion".

 

Exactly. So unless you know those variables, you don't know the impact of your agreement and it should be assumed that you are negatively affecting the outcome. I would argue that this makes any such agreement at minimum on the darker side of the gray zone, and at most wrong.

 

 

I, personally, don't have a high enough opinion of myself or my willingness to bid like a madman on anything to assume that if I don't bid on any given item that it will go for less than it would have.

 

Assuming that I negatively impact the outcome of an item that has more than myself and one other bidder is not an assumption grounded in facts. As long as there are at least two people tangoing out there when I stop bidding I don't have any impact at all on where the piece ends. It's up to the participants.

 

As for how gray a area it is, let's run a hypothetical. The new catalog comes out from "X" auction house. You're excited to page through it, and start making a list of items you might like. You have a couple of friends that do the same. You all get together over drinks and the topic turns to the auction.

 

One of the friends mentions that a piece that he used to own, or was the cover to the first comic he ever read, or it was the comic he put down to lose his virginity for the first time, or whatever...and he really wants to get that cover. I decide, without him asking, that I will not bid on the piece given the demonstration he's given me of whatever the reason is that he and this piece should be together. Collusion?

 

What if part of how I decide what I am going to bid on and what I want to own includes how I feel about the transaction surrounding the piece. How would I feel if I bid against a friend on a piece, knowing full well his personal connection to it, etc? Do I want a piece that reminds me that I am a selfish for denying a friend a piece that obviously tickled at his nostalgia-nads far more intensely than my own.

 

People make decisions for all kinds of reason on why they bid or refrain from bidding on a piece. No piece of art, for me, is worth denying someone I care about a chance to own it if I believe they truly want it more than I do. I've stepped aside, voluntarily, on several pieces knowing that I could never look at that piece, had I won it, and not felt like human garbage for placing material items above friendship.

 

 

[buttock]

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.

[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.

[Bronty]

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.

[vodou]

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.

Actions of inclusion (shill bidding) and seclusion (so-called collusive non-bidding) are not the same. I understand this from the realm of philosophy*. But somebody with a strong theoretical math background needs to step up and bridge the gap (of the formulas) to the layperson using formulas. We've got a group here of rather eclectic backgrounds, I'm sure somebody here can do this without batting an eye. Alas, I do not have that talent!

 

 

*The inclusive form of misleading someone is by lying, the seclusion form is not sharing all relevant (a subjective there!) details of all things at all times. Most people can see the difference.

[rotembk]

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, because in shilling the seller generates fictional bids that never existed. In the 'collusion' situations we describe, people have legitimate reasons not to bid and what you and others suggest is that a bidder is required to ignore everything he/she knows about other potential bidders and bid his/her maximum limit no matter what. If I know I'm going to be blown out of the water because a BSD is interested in the piece, am I compelled to bid nonetheless? If so, how much? If I now know the BSD's limit, should I bid over my limit in order to help the seller get to the other bidder's limit?

[Terry Doyle]

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.

[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.

[vodou]

*The inclusive form of misleading someone is by lying, the seclusion form is not sharing all relevant (a subjective there!) details of all things at all times. Most people can see the difference.

Another example is: The difference between actions causing harm and failing to act to prevent harm. This is another one most people get, intuitively.

 

Of course there are (always) do-gooders at the ready that love to tell everybody else what they should do; then use a legislative gun-to-the-head to get so-called Good Samaritan laws on the books. Plenty of people think this legal jeopardy is total horsesht. I stand tall and proud at the front of that line.

[Terry Doyle]

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.

 

Very well said.

 

I wonder how consigners of high-end pieces to auction would feel if the leading contenders for the art got to gather to bow-out of the bidding war in order to help a friend get the piece for a lower amount than what could have resulted from toe-to-toe bidding if all had participated?

[Ironmandrd]

I wish I had the speed-typing prowess or time to post on this subject as much as I have to say on it. I am firmly on the "I have no problem with it" side for what we are taking about. These are basically two OA friends agreeing to something. It's not "collusion" - people are not working together to defraud anyone or price fix to their mutual benefit or manipulate the market.

 

As Gene indicates, there are times when you let the chips fall as they may (and the vast majority of my bidding falls under that category). On occasion though I have been asked to not bid on certain Avengers and Iron Man pages (over 5 times that I can recall without even really thinking). I don't view those collectors as horrible people trying to guilt or blackmail me. I'm under no compulsion to not bid. There's no gun to my head.

 

After being asked, I will then have a dialogue with the person to see how we both feel about the piece (unless I otherwise know from prior dealings with them). Then I decide whether the person appears to have a much greater "want" or "need" than I do. Sometimes I say "sorry I cannot do that for this piece" and let the best bid win. Many times though I forebear from bidding because the fact that they reached out to me is usually the starting point that they REALLY want/need the piece and they are trying to tactically improve their chances (and sometimes are even "desperate"). 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.

 

At that point it's just a gentleman's agreement--between two OA collecting friends. I'm doing them a favor. I don't owe the seller or the auction house the obligation to bid. I'm not a "market maker" propping up/supporting the Iron Man and Avengers OA market. I'm not defrauding or manipulating anyone.

 

I'm doing it for the good karma for an OA friend and maybe at some point in the future that person will do me a good turn by alerting me to a piece I didn't otherwise see or know about or give me a better price the next time I buy or sell with them.**

 

Case in point:

 

http://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/barry-smith-and-bob-layton-iron-man-232-page-19-original-art-marvel-1988-/a/7084-92355.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

I was asked by two people to not bid on this page as they both really wanted it (and one REALLY wanted it). I have a number of pages from that issue already and both of them had none. So guilty as charged - I did not bid. It doesn't always have to be cutthroat dog-eat-dog OA world. Unfortunately both the people who asked me not to bid lost out on this page and there was a high likelihood I would have bid a bit higher - but such is life.

 

I cannot recall specifically but I'm pretty sure at least one time I asked two other Avengers collectors to not bid on something. I don't even recall what happened.

 

 

**Heck, I could even change my mind if I wanted to with no repercussions other than showing that I don't stand behind my agreements and that could hurt my collecting reputation in the future.

[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.